Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LARGS BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Diplomatic Missions (Motor Cars)

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what concessions are made to members of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom to purchase, free of Purchase Tax or import duties, cars of British or foreign origin.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): A diplomat with full diplomatic privilege does not at any time bear revenue charges on a car, whether British or of foreign manufacture, bought for his personal use. Other members of missions import their cars free of such charges at their first arrival, on appointment here. The charges become payable on any cars which are disposed of in this country.

Mr. Harrison: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that it is rather silly that members of the Diplomatic Corps should be able to import a car without Purchase Tax or other duties, whereas, if they buy one here, before taking it away they have to pay the tax and get a refund and so have an additional inconvenience?

Mr. Lloyd: I will consider my hon. Friend's point, but I think that what has been the practice up to now is not really too bad a one.

Shipbuilding (Finance)

Sir L. Ropner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the arrangements for financing export contracts as announced by him will enable foreign ship owners to obtain credit for building ships in this country on terms which entail preferential treatment to the disadvantage of British ship owners.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. The position of the British ship owner is not worsened by the new arrangements and I do not believe that foreign owners in general will be at an advantage.

Sir L. Ropner: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Governments of other countries are finding a large number of ways of financially assisting shipbuilders and ship owners? Will he make inquiries into this practice and try to follow the example of other nations?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly will do that, and I will also consider any evidence which my hon. and gallant Friend has to give me. The British owner enjoys the 40 per cent. investment allowance, which is a substantial assistance, but the scheme about which my hon. and gallant Friend is asking relates to exports.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise by now that this 40 per cent. investment allowance applies only when profits are earned, and that shipping companies which do not make profits do not derive any advantage from it?

Mr. Lloyd: That is true over a temporary period, but not over a term of years.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether credit at 5½ per cent. fixed, in accordance with the scheme he announced on 23rd January, 1962, will be available for British ship owners building in British shipyards.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Ridley: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he is aware that the setting up of this scheme is of great benefit to exports; that British ships also earn a very large amount of foreign currency which could be regarded as an export; and that what he


is doing is discriminating against British shipping to the advantage of foreign-owned shipping? Will he go back to the City and try to arrange terms for our own ship owners as advantageous as those for foreign ship owners?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend will have heard the reply I made earlier to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) about this matter. This was a scheme for exports and I am glad that it has been accepted as being of benefit. I am very ready to examine any information about how foreign ship owners could be in a better position than British ship owners. I remind my hon. Friend of what I said about investment allowance.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the proposal made by his hon. Friend would stimulate British shipbuilding, because many ship owners would be very glad to scrap some old vessels and have new ones built, if they could find the necessary credit, and this proposal would assist them?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of that fact, but the scheme about which I have been questioned was designed to encourage exports and was, I think, of benefit.

Economic Policy

Mr. Prentice: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes to make in the Government's economic policies, in view of the rise in unemployment recently.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: None, Sir. The Government are taking active measures to assist industry to move to areas of high unemployment and will continue to do so.

Mr. Prentice: Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least acknowledge that an increase of over 71,000 in the number of registered unemployed in a month is a rather alarming figure? Will he also acknowlelge that this is due in the main to the policy that he himself has been following since last July?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that it is also necessary to remember that on the last date for which the figures are available 154,000 more people were in employ

ment than in the corresponding period last year. As regards trying to take industry to places where there are high levels of unemployment, we are spending in the current financial year about £34 million on that, and I shall be surprised if the bill next year is any less.

Sir P. Agnew: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recollect that almost fifteen years ago, when the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was a Minister, there were million unemployed?

Mr. Lloyd: That is true, but I think that that was during a slightly abnormal period.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of that statement, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make inquiries to ascertain the truth of it and deny the contention if the Government documents in his possession indicate that there is no truth whatever in the statement?

Mr. Lloyd: I did my best to help the right hon. Gentleman by saying that the period to which I thought my hon. Friend was referring was a rather abnormal one.

Shipbuilding, Blyth

Mr. Milne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Government order can now be expected by Blyth shipyard in view of the scheduling of the town as a development district under the Local Employment Act.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): When tenders for Government contracts are of equal merit, preference is given to firms in areas listed as development districts. Firms at Blyth will thus qualify for preference under this scheme.

Mr. Milne: Is not the Minister aware that, while it is important to direct new industries to a development district, it is equally important to keep the industries in the area going? While we are grateful to him for his Answer, my I point out that this is a shipyard that is adapting itself both in management and men to modern conditions?

Sir E. Boyle: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that among the


Supplementary Estimates recently presented to Parliament was one for nearly £4 million under the Local Employment Act.

Industry and Agriculture (Consultation)

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what bodies he has regular meetings with the worker and management representatives of industry, including the nationalised industries, and agriculture.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have regular meetings with the representatives of employers and trade unions and the nationalised industries on the National Production Advisory Council on Industry.

Sir Richard Glyn: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the interests of efficiency and economy, all such meetings should be coordinated, and will he do his best, with the co-operation of his Ministerial colleagues, to see that in future all such meetings are convened by him and held under the aegis of the N.E.D.C.?

Mr. Lloyd: I will consider the point which my hon. Friend has put. I am not sure that it will be acceptable to all my Ministerial colleagues. Nevertheless, I agree with him, and I hope that I shall very soon be able to make a statement on the position of some of these bodies when we have the N.E.D.C. set up.

Wages, Salaries and Dividends

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage rise in wages, salaries and dividends, respectively, over the past ten years.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Between 1950 and 1960 it is estimated that total wages rose by 87 per cent., total salaries by 119 per cent. and gross ordinary dividends by 145 per cent. Total company profits rose by 70 per cent. in this period.
Provisional figures for the first nine months of 1961 suggest that wages and salaries in that period were altogether about 8·1 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period of 1960, while the level of gross ordinary dividends rose by about 12 per cent. Company profits fell by 7 per cent. in this period.

Mr. Jay: In view of the figures for the last ten years, which the Chancellor has given, is it not really absurd to suggest that rising wages have been the main cause of inflation? Is it not even more indefensible to try to hold down wage rises to 2½ per cent. while not effectively imposing any such restraint on a great many salaries and incomes?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has completely disregarded one very important fact, that between 1950 and 1960 £10,000 million of profits were ploughed back into industry and in addition £1,500 million of new capital was raised. In fact, gross dividends went up by £600 million. If that is considered in relation to the £10,000 million ploughed back and the £1,500 million of new capital raised, I think one gets the rise in dividends in much better proportion.

Mr. Jay: It is just because I realise these facts that I put the Question in terms of dividends and not of profits.

Mr. Lloyd: But surely dividends are relevant. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should be savings without any return on the savings at all when these are company savings?

Mr. Jay: If I am asked the question, I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he is not aware that obviously the fairest comparison is between wages, salaries and dividends.

Mr. Lloyd: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the size of the labour force comes into account? The labour force has gone up by 8 per cent. and it is a relevant factor. The amount of capital on which dividends are paid is also a relevant factor.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in 1960 wages and salaries totalled £13,690 million and dividends on ordinary shares only £986 million?

Mr. Lloyd: Gross dividends were about 7 per cent. of wages and salaries.

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman complaining that there are too many workers now?

Mr. Lloyd: I was really complaining that hon. Members opposite, who are


supposed to encourage savings and who want profits ploughed back, do not seem to be prepared to agree that these profits deserve some remuneration.

Trustee Investments Act (Section 15)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take following the two recent judicial interpretations of Section 15 of the Trustee Investments Act, in the cases of in re Kolb's Will Trusts and in re Porritt's Will Trusts on the subject of investment, to clarify the position.

Sir E. Boyle: I understand that an appeal is being made in one of these cases. It would, therefore, be premature for me to comment.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Does not the Chancellor consider that the judgment of the judges in both these cases, in spite of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, have taken a rather limited view of the Variation of Trusts Act, 1958, despite the assurance given in Committee on the Trustees Investment Bill by the former Solicitor-General?

Sir E. Boyle: I know that a great deal of concern is felt about this matter. I think that at the present time it would be premature for me to comment, as I have said.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind when he considers this case that this is a point on which the Government twice asserted that the Chancery judges had been consulted and that it appeared in the final stages of the Committee proceedings they had not been consulted?

Sir E. Boyle: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we shall take into account what was said by the Government during the debate and anything said on the judgments.

Income Tax (Travelling Expenses)

Mr. W. Baxter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give tax relief to working and professional people who incur considerable cost in going to and from work.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir.

Mr. Baxter: Do I understand that the Chancellor will not give consideration to this very important question when in fact there are closures of pits in many areas throughout the land and people have to travel considerable distances to their work? I can assure him that in my constituency the majority of people have to incur expenses of up to and sometimes over £1 a week. If he seeks to be fair and equitable in taxation he must give serious consideration to expenses incurred by working people travelling to and from their work.

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Royal Commission on Taxation considered this question and came down decisively in favour of the view that such an allowance would not in general be justified, and the Government feel that that argument stands.

Mr. Callaghan: Whatever dusty answer may be given on this, is the Financial Secretary aware that there is growing resentment at the treatment of P.A.Y.E. workers in matters of expenses in comparison with those assessed under Schedule D? Will he take steps to ask his right hon. and learned Friend to equalise conditions under which expenses are granted between Schedule D and P.A.Y.E. taxpayers?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman is raising a matter of considerable importance which ranges rather wider than the Question on the Order Paper. We shall no doubt have an opportunity of discussing the point raised by the hon. Gentleman at an appropriate time.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Financial Secretary aware that this creates very great difficulty in industrial areas where there is new housing and people have to go seven or eight miles out of the centre of the city. In many instances, the cost of transport is 5s. or 6s. a week, and this makes it difficult to persuade people to go into the new houses. The Chancellor knows perfectly well that this is so on Merseyside. Would it not be wise to look at this position to see if means could not be found to ease the situation?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Lady is perfectly right in saying that the tax system must be seen to be fair. It would be quite impracticable to devise a relief as


suggested in the Question which would be both fair and workable.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hamilton, Question No. 10.

Mr. Baxter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: There can be no further point of order to a notice which was itself given late.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to give notice that a matter is to be raised on the Adjournment which inescapably must involve new legislation?

Mr. Speaker: It is perfectly in order to give notice. I will consider whether the matter is in order on the Adjournment when it arises and not now.

Surtax

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his recently announced policy of seeking to restrain rises in personal incomes, he will now rescind the proposed concession to Surtax payers.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how on earth he expects organised workers to understand either the logic or the justice of his appeal to them to restrain their incomes when at the same time he is giving out £83 million to the wealthiest section of the community?

Mr. Lloyd: I have altered the basis of assessment. In that case there had been a pause of something like forty years since the time 'it was originally introduced. I did it for economic reasons, because I wanted to put a certain section of the community on a tax basis comparable with that of our competitors. I have seen the posters: "Wages and Salaries Frozen. £80 million for the Surtax payers." In fact, between April, 1961, and January, 1963, when this relief comes into effect, I think that wages and salaries will have gone up by about ten times that amount.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recollect that this Surtax concession was given with the express hope that it would provide an incentive to exporters? Will he give an undertaking that if exports do not increase to the extent that he visualised when the concession was first introduced it will be withdrawn?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly not. The purpose of the concession was to put a certain important section of the community on a basis comparable with that of our competitors overseas.

Mr. Jay: But as the right hon. and learned Gentleman also said that one purpose of the concession was to obtain an increase in production, and as production has since fallen, will not he reconsider the concession?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly not. I am absolutely convinced that, in the long term, what I have done is right.

Landlords (Renewal of Leases)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the large sums demanded by ground landlords for the renewal of leases on dwelling houses; and, in view of the fact that these landlords have not contributed towards increases in the value of the land, if he will take steps to examine the sums as a source of revenue.

Sir E. Boyle: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that two cases were brought to my attention recently, first, of a man who paid £3 a year ground rent, whose lease still has fourteen years to go, and who is being asked to pay £550 for its renewal, and, secondly, of a man who is being asked to pay £350 plus £20 a year for the renewal of the ground lease? If the Minister is prepared to impose this wage freeze for the workers, why should he not adopt a rent freeze for these landlords? Is not he aware that, in the eyes of the workers, whatever he may say in answer to my question will not justify the robbery that is going on in this respect?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member, who always expresses himself so felicitously, has not left me much to say in reply,


but I will remind him that if these land lords are trading in real property these premiums constitute trade receipts, and enter into the computation of taxable profits.

National Economic Development Council

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exechequer whether he will arrange to have attendances and minutes of the National Economic Development Council published; and if he will ensure, in the interests of encouraging national productivity, that members shall only be paid for actual attendances on an expense basis for expenses actually incurred.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The National Economic Development Council has not yet met. It will be for the Council to decide to what extent it will make its proceedings and recommendations public.
With regard to possible allowances for expenses, I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that I am not asking what the Council will decide to do? I am asking whether the Chancellor will take some action to encourage industry generally by suggesting that the minutes of attendance of this Council should be published. As all those people who have been announced as members of the Council are receiving good salaries and expenses, is it not right that they should claim only for the actual expenses incurred, and should not make money out of their service on the Council?

Mr. Lloyd: I have said that I will consider the hon. Member's point. I have not the slightest reason to think that any member of this Council, whether he represents a trade union or otherwise, will want to make money out of his attendance.

Goya Picture, National Gallery (Committee's Report)

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the Committee set up to investigate the theft of the portrait by Goya will report.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committee investigating the theft of the Goya portrait from the National Gallery has now reported; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I understand that the Committee has finished its inquiries, and that the Government may now expect to receive its Report this week.

Mr. Royle: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is public concern about the administration of the National Gallery? Will he, therefore, publish this Report as a White Paper when he receives it?

Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that from the nature of the matters investigated it will be necessary to consider what is in the Report before deciding whether or not to publish it.

Mr. Mitchison: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether they have found the picture?

Mr. Lipton: Security has apparently improved, and no further pictures have been stolen since the Goya disappeared, but can the Chancellor explain how it is that only the other day, in the House of Lords, a Government spokesman said that it would be a month or two before the Report would be published, or would reach the Government, whereas today the announcement is made that the Report is in the hands of the Government? There seems to be a lack of coordination somewhere, which probably reflects itself in the security arrangements generally.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member should be satisfied with my reply, anyway.

Overseas Investment

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give figures to show how United Kingdom overseas investment compares with what it was before the last war.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It is not possible to make this comparison, because the only available figures relating to pre-war investment overseas are certain unofficial and incomplete estimates prepared on a different basis from current official estimates.

North-East

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the increase of unemployment in the North-East, he will ask the National Economic Development Council to consider as an urgent priority the inflationary influences of the labour drift southwards and the need for new measures to promote industrial growth where resources are under-employed.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I agree that the full use of our resources is the kind of issue which might very well engage the Council's attention.

Mr. Boyden: I am thankful for that half-answer. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman answered Question No. 3 he stated that £34 million had been spent under the Local Employment Act. Will he state how much of that was spent in the North-East, and agree that this is far too little?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly state the amount when I know it, if the hon. Member will give notice of that question.

Exports

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that personal incomes for the first nine months in 1961 increased by 7 per cent. whereas output increases only by 11 per cent., what was the increase or decrease in exports; to what extent exports were held back by higher prices caused by higher incomes; if he will take further steps to publicise the dangers to exports caused by higher prices: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Over the first nine months of 1961 exports rose by £99 million, or about 3½ per cent. I have no doubt that exports were to some extent held back by higher prices, but that is very difficult to quantify. A continuation of the rise in prices and costs, which is simply another aspect of the inflation of personal incomes, would be very damaging to our export prospects. I have frequently drawn attention to the importance of keeping down the cost of exports so as to allow exporters to take full advantage of the expanding markets open to them. This is indeed one of the principle objects of the Government's incomes policy.

Sir C. Osborne: If exports increased by only 3½ per cent. whereas personal, incomes rose by 7 per cent., is not that going to make the position of exporters a great deal more difficult? What new steps will my right hon. and learned Friend take to convince the nation that unless we export more we may have 1 million people unemployed before long?

Mr. Lloyd: What my hon. Friend says is true, and I hope that every hon. Member will co-operate in convincing public opinion in this country of the facts as my hon. Friend has stated them.

Dividends

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what appropriate corrective action he proposes to take in accordance with paragraph 14, dealing with profits and dividends, of the White Paper on Incomes Policy, in view of the excessive increase in dividends from 1958 to 1961, compared with increases in hourly wage rates.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In view of the fall in profits, from which dividends are paid, in 1961, I do not think there is any need for corrective action at the present time.

Mr. Callaghan: Has not the Chancellor looked up the figures, which show that dividends increased four times as quickly as wages during those years? Does not he regard that as excessive, whatever the rate of profits paid out? Does not he realise that until he takes some action along these lines his incomes policy will be regarded as a mockery by the ordinary people?

Mr. Lloyd: People who say that should also point out the fact that I mentioned earlier, concerning the ploughing back of profits and the raising of new capital. It also depends on the period from which one takes the figures. Comparing 1938 with 1961 one finds an enormously greater increase in earnings than in dividends. Between 1946 and 1961 the figures are about the same. But the statistics that we have do not take into account the factor that I have mentioned, which is of great importance, and I hope that the hon. Member will help me in explaining it to the people.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Chancellor aware that I shall certainly assist to make the economic facts of this country known during the next few months? Whether he will agree with my analysis I am not so sure. It is that he has laid down, as a condition for increases in pay, that people must undertake more arduous or onerous work. What is it he is asking the shareholders to undertake in order to justify this excessive increase in dividends?

Mr. Lloyd: It is quite clear from the fall in profits that the figures for dividends will correspond, because profits are the fount of dividends. As the statistics that I gave earlier show, the fall in profits has been very substantial.

Mentally-handicapped Children (Occupation Centres)

Mr. Owen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend subsection (1) of Section 212 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, so as to bring the occupation centres for the training of mentally handicapped children within the meaning of educational establishment and thus remove the prevailing anomaly.

Sir E. Boyle: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion, but I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Owen: During his consideration of this and other matters, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that there is a challenge and an anomaly here that causes some concern to the Inland Revenue authorities, in that a centre for handicapped children functions in almost identically the same way as an educational institute? Is he, therefore, prepared to give this matter serious consideration?

Sir E. Boyle: This, along with many other matters, will be considered. In general it is true that these training centres do not satisfy the statutory test, but this is one of many matters which my right hon. and learned Friend will be looking into.

Pensions (Payment)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider a new system for the payment

of pensions which are the direct financial liability of Her Majesty's Government, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Tynemouth; and if he will make a statement.

Sir E. Boyle: I understand that the hon. Lady has in mind a suggestion that all public service pensions, no matter when awarded, should be raised to the level of those currently being awarded for similar service. Her Majesty's Government, like all previous Governments, are unable to accept such a fundamental and costly change in the principles governing public service pensions.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that I was referring to the creative plan of Air Marshal Sir Gerald Gibbs, who has written to my right hon. and learned Friend and had a very courteous, if non-committal, reply not embodying what my hon. Friend has said? When we are having new ideas about pay, salaries and production, may I ask my hon. Friend why, at some time or other, we should not examine the position of those who have already served their country well? Or do we always have to discard those who have served and look to those who may serve us? Can my hon. Friend answer that?

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, certainly. In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I do not think that it would be very courteous were my right hon. and learned Friend to answer correspondence in the style of a Parliamentary Answer. Regarding the second part, one has to remember that it would cost as much as £70 million in the first year—

Dame Irene Ward: That is not right.

Sir E. Boyle: It is correct. We are here considering the possibility of a very big change in policy. I make no apology for saying that my right hon. and learned Friend, like all his predecessors, feels that this would be too fundamental and costly a change to make.

Dame Irene Ward: They are all dyed-in-the-wool.

Mr. H. Hynd: Could not the £70 million be found if the Chancellor cancelled the Surtax concession?

Sir E. Boyle: Unless we have a thrusting and competitive economy I do not consider, that we shall be serving the interests of the pensioners themselves. I think it is great nonsense to suppose that we should have the level of pensions that we wish unless there is sufficient scope for initiative in the tax system.

Salaries

Mr. McKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many salaried persons are included in the category of those who received a total of £5,060 million in 1960; whether this number includes directors who receive yearly or part-time fees; what part of the total sum is comprised by such fees; and if he will in future publish in his monthly digest of statistics details showing the average number of people receiving salaries of up to £2,000 per annum, between £2,000 and £5,000 per annum, and between £5,000 and £10,000 per annum, respectively, together with the totals of annual salaries for each group.

Sir E. Boyle: Precise figures of the division of the total labour force between wage earners and salary earners are not availably but it is estimated that the total number of salary earners in 1960 was about 6¾million, including directors. Directors' fees are in general included in the figures of earnings taxed under P.A.Y.E., from which the estimates of wages and salaries are derived, but are not separately identified. It is estimated, however, that the total of such fees included in the figure for salaries paid in 1960 was of the order of £200 million. So far as publication of numbers of salary earners in various ranges of income is concerned, I would draw the hon. Member's attention to table 67 in the 104th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. This table shows total Schedule E incomes classified by sex and by range of remuneration, but separate figures for wages and salaries are not available. This information can only be obtained annually, with a considerable time lag, and would not be appropriate for publication in the Monthly Digest of Statistics.

Mr. McKay: I am very thankful for the Minister's reply. At the same time I think the object of the Question itself should be taken notice of and implemented. We have all the possible in

formation relative to wages. Why cannot we get the same information relative to other personal affairs?

Sir E. Boyle: I ask the hon. Gentleman to study my original Answer again. I apologise for its length, but it was a long Question and one could not use the traditional remark—" as the Answer contains a number of figures…" I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find the Answer informative.

Mr. McKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what particular factors resulted in a 61 per cent. rise in total salaries between 1954 and 1960 compared with a 40 per cent. rise in total wages over the same period.

Sir E. Boyle: The faster rise in total salaries than in total wages can be attributed mainly to the simple fact that over this period the number of salary earners rose much faster than the number of wage earners.

Mr. McKay: Does not the Minister think that, when we know the number of these people, it should not be difficult to obtain the number who get that money? Therefore, is not it necessary that we should have as much information on this subject as we have about wages? I hope we shall do something in this matter.

Sir E. Boyle: I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Member, but I understood the original Question and Answer better than his supplementary question. If the hon. Member wishes further information on the whole subject, may I suggest that he looks at the very good analysis in the book by Butler and Rose on the last General Election?

Mr. Jay: Can the Financial Secretary say what were the percentage rises in the number of salary earners and wage earners respectively?

Sir E. Boyle: Between 1954 and 1960 the number of salary earners increased by about 22 per cent. and wage earners by about 1 per cent.

University Teachers (Salaries)

Mr. Longden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet able to publish the Government's proposals in the matter of the salaries of university teachers.

Sir E. Boyle: I would refer my hon. Friend to previous replies on this matter to which I have at present nothing to add.

Mr. Longden: I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that that is a very disappointing reply. Is he aware that a long time has now elapsed since a statement was first promised? May I ask, first, whether he would not agree that as soon as the pay pause permits, a major adjustment of these salaries is necessary so that the top rewards in the profession are more comparable to the top rewards in comparable professions? Secondly, will he say whether backdating will apply either initially or as a principle, and, thirdly, whether some kind of negotiating machinery comparable to Burnham can now be introduced?

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot anticipate any announcement, but I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the need for an early announcement on this subject. Regarding the last part of the supplementary question, my information is that the arrangements, given the special circumstances of academic employment, are generally acceptable.

Mr. Callaghan: What about backdating?

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot answer any further.

Non-Ferrous Metal Mining

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of Great Britain's continuing balance of trade difficulties he will take fiscal steps to encourage the long-term development of non-ferrous metal mining in Great Britain.

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend has noted the hon. and learned Member's suggestion, but after full consideration last year he has reached the conclusion that he could not justify giving special tax reliefs for this purpose. I am afraid that our view on the matter remains unchanged.

Mr. Boyden: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the fluctuation in the price of tin, for example, and the supply of tin, makes nonsense of the

British policy. When we do not have a steady long-term policy with relation to this and other matters, would not it be better for the national interest if this were planned over a period?

Sir E. Boyle: I know the sincere feelings held by hon. Members on both sides of the House about this. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the debates on the Finance Bill last year. My right hon. and learned Friend came to his conclusion after a great deal of thought, and he does not feel that he can change his mind now.

Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Limited

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the inventory value of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Limited, at the latest convenient date; what steps the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency has now taken to prepare for denationalisation; and, having regard to the undertaking of the Government to denationalise the rump of the State-owned steel industry before the next General Election and the decline in value of steel equities on the London Stock Exchange, whether he will now make a statement concerning early denationalisation of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Limited.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The value of the company's net assets on 30th September, 1961, the date of the last balance sheet, was £154·7 million. The Government's policy on the remaining stages of steel denationalisation is well known; but it would be contrary to practice for me to enter into discussion about possible future sales by the Agency.

Mr. Nabarro: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the date of the next General Election is now getting very close—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and the time to complete this denationalisation operation is, therefore, quite short? Would not he feel with me very keenly if we were to face the electorate with a charge being made against us of a broken pledge?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Lloyd: I think the result of the next General Election will not greatly affect this issue. With regard to the


question which my hon. Friend has asked, I have nothing to add to what has been said before.

Mr. M. Foot: Would not the Chancellor accept the fact that any proposal for denationalising Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Limited, would be a wanton act of pillage? Would he not give a guarantee that he will act in this matter in the national interest and not in the interests of the private steel masters who subscribe to Conservative Party funds?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. I have every intention of acting is the national interest.

Mr. Callaghan: As at least £70 million of new public money has been invested in Llanwern, surely the time has come for the Government to reconsider their policy and to repeal this Act? How can the Chancellor justify selling to private interests and private enterprise assets to which they have subscribed nothing and contributed nothing and from which, if the hon. Member has his way, they will draw all the benefit?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not agree at all with what the hon. Member says.

Mr. Morris: Will the Chancellor give an assurance to the House that there will be no announcement of the sale of R.T.B. while the House is in recess, as in the case of S. G. Brown & Company, Limited, Llanelly Steel and Staveley Iron?

Mr. Lloyd: I will consider that point.

Mr. Jay: If the Chancellor says that £70 million of public money has not been lent to Richard Thomas and Baldwins, will he say what the figure is because, according to our information, at least £70 million was lent over the last two years?

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Member puts down a Question about the exact amount I will try to answer it

Economic Growth

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the statement in Command Paper No. 1626, Incomes Policy: The Next Step.

that Her Majesty's Government's policy is to secure faster economic growth, if he will study economic measures adopted towards this end by other industrial countries, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Certainly.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Chancellor recollect that when we were fellow travellers with the Prime Minister in Moscow the Prime Minister made a remarkable speech in which he said that industrial progress in the U.S.S.R. was unparalleled in history? May we take it that he will not rule out a study of economic planning as it has been so successful in the U.S.S.R.?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member has slightly disappointed me in his supplementary question. I thought he wanted me to refer to Mr. Khrushchev's speech on 23rd November, in which he said:
The level of wages must correspond to the level of material production achieved by labour productivity. Labour productivity must always be one jump ahead of the growth of wages.
Secondly—the hon. Member will remember this, no doubt—Mr. Khrushchev said:
Of course, the State is unable to allocate supplementary funds for wages, and consequently one should act within the limits of the wages funds available.
The final question Mr. Khrushchev asked was:
If we raise wages and the wage funds are higher than the funds of goods what happens then?
He was talking to tractor drivers and advocating a wage pause.

Capital Gains (Mergers and Take-over Bids)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent his appeal for continued restraint in profits and dividends in paragraph 14 of the White Paper, Incomes Policy: The Next Step, includes restraint on the part of individuals and others in the matter of capital gains and increases in share values arising from mergers and takeover bids.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The White Paper deals with the question of restraint in


the growth of all forms of incomes. The question of capital gains is a separate one. I have already expressed the intention to submit to the House proposals for taxing certain types of short-term gains now free of tax.

Mr. Hughes: Does that Answer mean that the Chancellor is keeping a very careful eye on what is happening in the affairs of Courtaulds and I.C.I.? Is he keeping an eye on this sort of activity as a possible source of revenue?

Mr. Lloyd: I am keeping a careful eye on all sorts of things at the present time.

Mr. M. Foot: Since he has stated so carefully Mr. Khrushchev's policy, can the Chancellor tell us what Mr. Khruschchev does about capital gains?

Mr. Lloyd: What he said in his speech was this:
If we raise wages and the wages funds are higher than the funds of goods, what happens then? You will have a lot of money, but you will not buy meat and milk in the shops, because the output of produce will fall still further behind the population's purchasing power. In such a situation the speculator is the only one to gain.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Chancellor aware that he could galvanise this nation into a similar effort to that being made in the U.S.S.R. if there were fair dealing among all sections of the population? Does he not realise that it is precisely because there is this discrimination in favour of shareholders and against those who earn their living that he is dividing the nation and failing to get the response he wants?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly agree that it is very necessary to convey to the people the sense of fair dealing. When hon. Members opposite talk about shareholders they never refer to cases where shareholders lose their money.

Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of order. As you have frequently ruled that it is out of order to give quotations in supplementary questions, Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that it is in order to give quotations in supplementary answers?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. I do not want to delay proceedings, but I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that I had a Question down to the Prime Minister today on the subject of the tests on Christmas Island. Only two hours ago was I informed that that Question had been transferred to another Minister. I submit that that is not good enough and it is time that the whole question of the method of transferring Questions was considered by you, Sir, or by representatives of the House.

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Member has said will have been heard, but I must adhere to the position, which he knows, that the Chair cannot undertake any responsibilities with regard to transfer. It is not practicable in the circumstances. I hope that, in view of what the hon. Member has said, notice will be taken of what happened in this particular case.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference in October this year to consider the state of negotiations on Great Britain's entry into the Common Market.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mal-ton (Mr. Turton), on 14th December, and my answers to supplementary questions by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on 6th February.

Mr. Healey: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has been compelled to admit the desirability in principle of holding such a conference and that it would inevitably take several months to organise a conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, does he not agree that there is a lot to be said for fixing a date now for October, a time when either we shall know the general lines of the conditions on which the Commonwealth will


be associated with us in our entry to the Common Market or—as seems increasingly likely—the negotiations for British entry will be bogged down, in which case it will be urgently necessary for us to consider with Commonwealth Prime Ministers alternative methods of international economic association to repair the damage done to the Commonwealth by the Government in the last eighteen months?

The Prime Minister: I will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said.

Sir C. Osborne: Since two years ago we offered to the Canadian Prime Minister a scheme for freer trade between ourselves and the Canadians which the Canadians turned down and refused to co-operate with us, have any of the other Prime Ministers shown willingness to offer credit facilities to bring about greater opportunities for more trade?

The Prime Minister: These are all matters for negotiation, but in regard to the specific Question I think it better to see a little longer how the negotiations are likely to proceed.

Mr. W. Baxter: Is it not time that the Prime Minister gave this House an opportunity to consider an interim report as to negotiations with the Common Market so that an expression of opinion of hon. Members can be made on the proceedings up to the moment?

The Prime Minister: This House voted in favour of opening the negotiations and I think it better to let them proceed.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister, however, say that at the appropriate moment, and in any event before any decision is taken by Her Majesty's Government on this matter, he will take the initiative in proposing a Commonwealth Prime Ministers conference to consider the whole situation?

The Prime Minister: I repeat what I said on 6th February. I will take the initiative at the appropriate moment in ascertaining whether it is the general wish of other Commonwealth Prime Ministers that a meeting should be held, but I do not think that that moment has yet arrived.

Oral Answers to Questions — INFORMATION SERVICES (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Milne: asked the Prime Minister what directions he gave, when assigning additional responsibilities in connection with Government Information to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, as to the division of his time between his Treasury and other official duties.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the new duties he has recently allotted to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, he will define the responsibilities of individual Ministers concerned with the home and overseas information services.

The Prime Minister: Each Minister is responsible for the information and public relations work of his own Department. But there are frequently activities in which several Departments are involved and there is thus a need for co-ordination. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, assisted by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, is responsible for the co-ordination of the home information services and my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation is responsible for the co-ordination of the overseas information services.
I am satisfied that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is able to apportion his time between his various activities himself.

Mr. Milne: Is the Prime Minister aware that in some quarters this is regarded as the opening shot in the next General Election campaign? In the midst of an economic crisis, is it not deplorable that a Minister should be taken from an important Department in order to prop up the fortunes of a tottering Government? Is he also aware that this shows a lamentable lack of faith in the ability of Colman, Prentis and Varley to pull an election out of the bag? Finally, has Mr. Colin Hurry been consulted on this appointment?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has got off all his points, but none of them is worth answering.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are now far too many


Ministers responsible in this field, including, according to the Answer he has just given, three Ministers responsible for the co-ordination of Government information? is he planning to have one Minister responsible for co-ordinating the co-ordinating Ministers? Has there been any occasion on which senior Ministers have been successfully co-ordinated by junior Ministers according to this arrangement?

The Prime Minister: I think that this is a good arrangement. There is a very natural division between the foreign services and home problems.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC EXPENDITURE (PLOWDEN COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION)

Sir G. Nicholson: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to implement the recommendation of the Plowden Committee relating to the need to enable Departmental Ministers to discharge their collective responsibility in relation to public expenditure more effectively.

The Prime Minister: We have strengthened the arrangements for ensuring that Ministers are kept regularly informed about the prospective development of expenditure as a whole and of resources.

Sir G. Nicholson: Does this mean that my right hon. Friend accepts the criticisms of the Plowden Committee, which was disquieted by the fact that, although Ministers certainly had full individual responsibility in relation to their Departments, they were to some extent lacking in opportunities of expressing collective responsibility complementary to their individual responsibility?

The Prime Minister: We are trying to act upon the recommendations of the Plowden Committee, which have been very valuable. I think that the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General as Chief Secretary to the Treasury is a help in this direction.

Mr. Milne: In view of the Prime Minister's failure to answer my supplementary question, have we now to listen to certain voices in the Conservative Party indicating that it is a new Prime Minister this country requires?

Mr. Speaker: I do not see how that arises out of the recommendations of the Plowden Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now consult with President Kennedy with a view to ensuring that no atmospheric tests will be carried out prior to the proposed Foreign Ministers meeting in connection with the eighteen-Power disarmament conference on 14th March in Geneva.

The Prime Minister: I told the House on 8th February that preparations for testing on Christmas Island had not yet begun. These preparations would take some time. The tests could certainly not be conducted before 14th March.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Prime Minister agree that nothing should be done to jeopardise the achievement of the initial measures of disarmament to which he referred in his recent letter to Mr. Khrushchev? Will he not, therefore, consult President Kennedy with a view to seeking an agreement not to carry out any tests for at least a period of three months from now?

The Prime Minister: That is another matter, but in point of fact I do not think that these preparations can be made very rapidly. Therefore, I do not think that the anxieties of the right hon. and learned Gentleman need be very great.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of what the Prime Minister has said, would it not be worth while to make it plain that no decision will be taken as to any tests at Christmas Island until after the Geneva talks have at least had a chance of getting under way and achieving some results? Further, is he aware that, on reading the full text of his and President Kennedy's message to Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Khrushchev's reply, it seems absurd to many of us that it should not be possible for the three major nuclear Powers to agree on a very high level meeting on this vital issue? In particular, we hope that the proposal of Mr. Khrushchev will not be rejected out of hand, but that a real attempt will be made to come together with the Soviet Union on this matter.

The Prime Minister: Yes. We welcome the broad spirit of Mr. Khrushchev's letter to us, which, as he explained quite frankly, was drafted, I think, separately from our own initiative. The problem is how to marry the practical proposals, which we are very anxious to make practical, with the more general ideas which the Chairman of the Soviet Union has in mind. We are considering our reply.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that Mr. Khrushchev made it plain in his letter that he was not proposing another Summit Conference, but simply that the Heads of State would be associated with these vitally important negotiations? Is not this fundamentally very much the same idea as President Kennedy and the Prime Minister himself proposed in their letter to Mr. Khrushchev?

The Prime Minister: There are, of course, similarities; but we do feel that, although a formal meeting of eighteen Prime Ministers—to make, no doubt, eighteen speeches, which would take quite a time—may be valuable, what is important in our proposal is the practical meeting of the three nuclear Powers, which have rather special responsibilities. Our problem is how to try to make a workable plan which will get the best of both, and we are considering our reply.

Mr. W. Yates: In any case, will not my right hon. Friend agree that we might postpone our own tests, as it is known that radioactive dust from tests in Nevada has been shown in Shropshire and elsewhere to be higher than when there have been explosions in the upper atmosphere? Should not we show our own initiative by delaying at least our underground tests in the meantime?

The Prime Minister: That is another matter. The Question refers to atmospheric tests.

Mr. Frank Allaun: When the last tests were held at Christmas Island four years ago, were there not protests from neighbouring countries which may have been affected by fall-out? Have these countries been consulted on this occasion?

The Prime Minister: Of course, they have been informed but we have to take

the broad question as a whole. I have no doubt that the House will at some time wish to express its views. I was gratified by the feeling—I hope I do not over-estimate it—that there was a broad understanding in the House when I spoke last week—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—or in a great part of the House, as to the problem which presented itself to us and some considerable degree of agreement with the solution I had proposed.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Manuel: With a view to getting the best possible atmosphere for the Geneva Conference, will the Prime Minister consider using his influence with President Kennedy so as to remove completely any reference to tests from the present arrangements? Will he agree that this should be done, with a view to getting on with disarmament at Geneva? If this were done, it would be much better and the Prime Minister would have very large support in the country for that point of view, rather than confusing the two issues.

The Prime Minister: We must remember that this is exactly what we did for three years.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Prime Minister agree that it is extremely important not to widen the differences between Mr. Khrushchev's approach and that of himself and President Kennedy? Is it not the case that, whereas President Kennedy and the Prime Minister suggested that the Foreign Ministers of the other countries in the eighteen-member committee would naturally wish or might wish to be associated, Mr. Khrushchev for his part suggested that not all the Heads of State of the eighteen nations would wish to be associated? Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that he will do his utmost to see if a compromise between the two proposals can be reached so that a meeting at any rate of those effectively in control of their Governments can take place?

The Prime Minister: I said that we are considering our reply. What I am anxious about is that we should have practical results. The President and I discussed this at some length from Bermuda onwards. We thought that


the proposal that there should be a meeting first before the opening of the conference of the nuclear Powers was a practical contribution, and I very much hope that this suggestion can be preserved in whatever is ultimately arranged.

Mr. Brockway: The Prime Minister referred to America, Russia and Britain as having a special responsibility. Is that not a responsibility to the world, and would it not, therefore, be desirable that there should be representatives of other nations, and particularly of the uncommitted nations, to express their views on the matter?

The Prime Minister: That is exactly why the eighteen-Power committee was arranged.

MEMBERS (SALARY AND EXPENSES)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. CALLAGHAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, under regulations, Members of Parliament are liable to tax on the full sum of £1,750 per annum received by them as salary and expenses; and to what extent, as regards deduction of expenses for Income Tax calculations, their position is comparable with the general body of salary and wage earners.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, about our domestic procedures concerning the salaries and expenses of Members of Parliament. There has been considerable misrepresentation in the Press about Members' expenses which are, as I think everyone in this House knows, treated for taxation purposes in the same way as the expenses of any other P.A.Y.E. payer. I put down Question No. 36 in order that the position should be made clear in the House. I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be willing to make that position clear, and whether, if he made such a request to you, you would allow him to answer the Question?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: With permission, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether I may answer Question No. 36?

Mr. Speaker: The test is whether a Minister asks for leave to answer a Question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman apparently does, and I give it.

Mr. Lloyd: Members of Parliament are liable to tax on their remuneration of £1,750 per annum, but, like other Schedule E taxpayers, can claim a deduction for expenses incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of their duties.

Mr. Callaghan: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that reply. May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make it trebly clear that Members of Parliament are in exactly the same position, no better and no worse, as any other Schedule E taxpayer; that they have no privileges, and have to prove every penny of their expenses in the same way as has any other citizen in the country?

Mr. Lloyd: That is precisely true. There is no privilege for Members of Parliament in this respect. They have to justify their expenses just as any other citizen has.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House that the business proposed for:

MONDAY, 19TH FEBRUARY—is, as I announced on Thursday, the Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

It is now proposed to take these stages formally to allow a debate to be opened on London Government.

This debate will arise on a Government Motion to take note of the White Paper, Command No. 1562, and will be concluded on Tuesday, 20th February.

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 7th February].

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 16.—(IMMIGRATION OFFICERS AND MEDICAL INSPECTORS.)

3.33 p.m.

The Chairman: The first Amendment selected is that in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), It will be possible also to discuss with it the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), in page 11, line 22, to leave out subsection (1), but a vote may be taken only on the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 11, line 23, to leave out from the first "State" to the end of line 26.
The effect of Clause 16 as it stands is that immigration officers should be appointed by the Secretary of State, and that, in addition, the Secretary of State may make arrangements with the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for the employment of Customs officers to act as immigration officers under the Bill. The Amendment seeks to delete the power to enable Customs officers to act as immigration officers.
For the Committee to appreciate the significance of this Amendment it is, perhaps, necessary for me to say something about the duties that will fall upon immigration officers when the Bill is enacted. Unfortunately, as a result of the Guillotine, we have not yet had full clarification of what those duties will be, or how immigration officers will act. We shall not know precisely what their functions will be until we see the instructions which the Home Secretary has promised to make public as soon as the Committee stage has finished and before the Bill reaches its Report stage.
On principle, I should have thought it unnecessary and undesirable to give to Customs officers the very wide and sweeping powers that will be given to immigration officers. We should, at least, know to what extent the Home Office intends to enrol Customs officers to supplement the work that will fall upon immigration officers.
For example, is it contemplated that this will be merely a casual, an occasional, use of Customs officers, and that it will arise only if immigration officers are themselves overworked? Or is it intended that Customs officers should be generally available to do the work of immigration officers at the ports? Can we have an assurance that the instructions to be given to immigration officers will be made available also to Customs officers?
The Committee will appreciate that I am not making any reflection on the admirable performance of their duties by Customs officers; any traveller returning from abroad can vouch for the fact that they perform their functions extraordinarily well. On the other hand, we must remember that Customs officers are primarily detectives; their primary duty is to stop smuggling, to stop contraband coming into the country. They are responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
If they are to be enrolled as supplementary immigration officers, will they be responsible to the Home Secretary? Will they, in respect of their functions under the Bill, have the same opportunities, when doubt arises, of quick and free access to the Home Secretary? I should also like to know whether any consultation has been had with them as to their preparedness to undertake these additional duties, which are totally different in kind from those they have hitherto been used to perform?
One reason why I think it objectionable that Customs officers should have this duty thrust upon them is that, as the Bill now stands, an immigration officer will have very sweeping powers. He will have the power to examine any immigrant. He will have the power to call for documents. He will have the power to search. There is a special provision that a woman immigrant cannot be searched except by a woman. Are there any women Customs officers? Are


any women to be employed as Customs officers in order to deal with women immigrants?
I would remind the Home Secretary that in our debates last week the Attorney-General stated that it was proposed to use the powers given to the Government by the Bill not so much for attaching conditions to immigrants with regard to the duration of their stay and the kind of work that they could take, but chiefly for the control of immigration. The Attorney-General recognises—as I am sure does the Home Secretary—that very great responsibilities will devolve on immigration officers in the large number of borderline cases that will arise as to whether a particular immigrant should or should not be admitted.
One of the reasons given by the Attorney-General for rejecting the strong plea made by my hon. Friends that an immigrant should have the right of appeal either to a tribunal or an independent person was that immigration officers would have very wide experience in dealing with these matters and could be relied upon to reach the right conclusion in the case of every individual immigrant. But will the Customs officers have anything like the same experience? If the duties of deciding admission or rejection are to be devolved by the Home Secretary on Customs officers, how can it be said that they will have the wide experience which is required so that justice is done to Commonwealth citizens who want to come here?
In a number of cases where admission is granted and conditions are imposed, the decision—as to what kind of conditions, what limit shall be placed on the man's stay, if any, and what conditions there shall be about his work—will obviously call not only for a great deal of experience and judgment, but also for a considerable amount of tact in handling these matters. How can it be argued that Customs officers will be able to discharge these duties, considering the great experience that is required of immigration officers?
There is a further point I must put to the Home Secretary and which, I hope, he will clear up. As the Bill stands, certain categories of person under Clause 2 will have the right to come to this

country provided that they satisfy the immigration officer—not the Customs officer—about their bona fides: first, those who have vouchers and can show that they have work to do; secondly, those who come here to study; and, thirdly, those who show that they can support themselves or can be supported by relatives. Any of those who can establish prima facie any of those three conditions have the right to come, subject only that they might be excluded on health grounds, because they have a criminal record or because they are a security risk. Such cases, I would imagine, would be very small in number.
In addition to those classes who have the right to come here, I understand from the Home Secretary that it is also contemplated that many other immigrants will be admitted under what is broadly called a "quota system." The Home Secretary made it clear on Second Reading—as it is clear from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill—that those who are to be admitted will not be limited to those who have a job to come to, to students or to those who can support themselves or can be supported by their relatives.
Others will be able to come here to seek work, if they so desire, up to prescribed numbers which, one may assume, will vary from month to month and probably from country to country. It is important that the Home Secretary should say something further about this, for we must look at the operation of the Bill as it will affect immigrants who want to come here and who are in doubt whether, if they come, they will be admitted or rejected.
I can appreciate that the mere passage of the Bill into law will have a deterrent effect. Whereas a great many people now come here knowing that they must be admitted as of right in future a large number of immigrants—not only from Canada and Australia, but, more particularly, from India, Pakistan and the West Indies—will be in doubt as to what their position will be if they get on a boat and arrive at Southampton.
3.45 p.m.
As the Bill stands, they are by no means certain about whether they will qualify because the decision to admit or reject them will, presumably, be taken on the spot, perhaps suddenly, by


an immigration officer. Thus, great problems of human freedom and rights are involved in these questions and it seems chat unless some justification—which I cannot see at the moment—is given it will be difficult for the Home Office to delegate these responsible duties to anyone other than experienced immigration officers.
Another matter arises out of an observation, which astonished me, which was made by the Attorney-General in our debates last week. We were then arguing that there should be an appeal tribunal so that anyone rejected and refused admission under Clause 2—and who claimed to be a bona fide student, or who had a job to come to or whose relatives would support him—would have the right, if rejected, to appeal to some appellant tribunal. The Attorney-General said, when resisting an Opposition Amendment:
In many cases admission may be refused"—
and we were dealing only with people coming under Clause 2—
not on account of any personal idiosyncracies of the individual, but because sufficient numbers have already been admitted to the country for that particular time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 354.]
In other words, the Attorney-General seemed to be saying that even if people qualified under Clause 2 for admission to the United Kingdom, and should not be refused admission, nevertheless admission could be refused not on any personal ground relating to the applicant himself, but for a totally different reason for which the applicant could not be responsible, namely, that sufficient numbers had already been admitted to the country for that particular time.
I hope that the Home Secretary will qualify that today. I am tempted to say that I hope he will repudiate it, because it seems to make nonsense of the whole basis on which we were examining Clause 2 last week. I hope that it can be established that anyone who satisfies the requirements of Clause 2 can come here and that, over and above that, others will be admitted up to a given number.
There may be cases about which an immigration officer will have to decide. But how will he decide? How will the immigrant know from month to month

whether sufficient numbers from a particular locality have or have not been admitted? There is another type of case for which it seems important that the discretion should be strictly confined to experienced immigration officers and should not be deputed to those who have no familiarity with immigration problems, but whose job it is to prevent contraband from being smuggled into the country. It was made clear last week that a large number of people will be coming to the United Kingdom in the hope of getting a job on the understanding that they are intending to do part-time work and act as part-time students.
In recent years large numbers of people have been coming here—deserving immigrants—who could be termed part-time students. Perhaps such an immigrant wants to do some work during the day and spend his evenings at the Peckham Institute, or some other place. Would such a student have the same rights as a Rhodes scholar or another accredited student coming to a university? These sort of matters will call for decisions to be made on the spot by immigration officers unless a number of immigrants are to be turned away.
It will be most important, if we pass the Bill, that it shall be administered as sympathetically as possible. The Home Secretary has more than once intimated that that is his intention. He could implement that intention if he made clear that in discharge of these responsibilities he will be served by experienced immigration officers only and that the duties will not be delegated to a wider class of person.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I support the Amendment, largely for the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) gave. My own Amendment goes a little further. I should have preferred to see the whole of subsection (1) taken out rather than just this part of it. It may possibly be that, in practice, there is no difference because, if I were to hazard a guess, it would be that the Home Secretary's intention in taking power to appoint immigration officers for the purpose of the Bill was intended only, as it were, as a preliminary to the power to make the Customs officers those


special immigration officers for the purposes of the Bill. But, of course, that is not what the Clause says and, even if it were, it would be subject to the devastating criticism which my hon. Friend has just made of it.
The Clause as it stands is extremely odd. With or without the Customs officers, is it the Home Secretary's intention to appoint immigration officers with limited powers? The Clause says:
Immigration officers for the purposes of this Act".
If he appoints an immigration officer under this Clause, will that officer be an immigration officer for all purposes, or will he be an immigration officer only "for the purposes of this Act", as the subsection appears to say?
Not only does that seem to be the proper interpretation of the words, but it is reinforced by another consideration. If it were only a question of increasing the number of immigration officers because of the hordes of Commonwealth citizens who might try to scrape through, the Home Secretary already has power to appoint as many immigration officers as he likes. He would not need a Clause in the Bill to appoint more. I am driven to the conclusion that what he is seeking to do is appoint a new class of immigration officer who will have none of the ordinary powers of the immigration officer to control the immigration of aliens, but who will have powers only for the purposes of the Bill.
If that be so, how is such an officer to be identified? Will he wear a special kind of uniform, wear a special badge, or produce a special kind of warrant? Moreover, if immigration officers of a special class are to be appointed for the purposes of the Bill, will they have exclusive powers under the Bill, or will the ordinary immigration officer act as well? None of this has been explained either on Second Reading or in any of our discussions in Committee so far. The Home Secretary will realise that the Clause as it stands requires a good deal of explanation.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, among the extraordinary powers under the Bill which the immigration officer will have there is a power to arrest without warrant. For certain purposes under the Customs and Excise Acts, a Customs

officer already has a fairly wide power to arrest without warrant, but, although it is a wide power, it is limited to offences under those Acts and he may not exercise it for anything else. Is it intended to give him a wide power of arrest without warrant for the purposes of the Bill added to the other purpose? Is the ordinary run-of-the-mill immigration officer to have a power of arrest without warrant under the Bill, or is it to be limited to this special kind of immigration officer who is neither a Customs officer nor an ordinary immigration officer but in a special class?
I hesitate to use the expression "secret police", because they will operate in the open. But how will they be identified? How will an immigrant be able to ascertain whether the officer has power to arrest and detain him without warrant? This is unexplained, but it is important.
There is another point, on the assumption that Customs officers are either to be all or some part of the special immigration officers appointed under the subsection. As my hon. Friend said, at some time or other, but not yet, we are to be told about the instructions which will be given to immigration officers. We know that there will be a great number of them. We know also, because the hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of State intervened in an argument on another Amendment to make the point clear, that the instructions will not be exhaustive, that the officer will be able to act according to instructions but with some discretionary power reserved to him.
The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out how desirable it was that the immigration officer, Customs officer, or whoever it will be, should not be too circumscribed by the instructions. Thus, there will be the instructions and, over and above the instructions, there will be discretionary powers, undefined except that they must come in some way within the ambit of the Bill.
If a Customs officer has to discharge these duties, he will add a great deal to what he has to do. His duties are fairly onerous as they are. He will be asked to read, learn and inwardly digest a volume of instructions, about which the Home Secretary, after he has these


powers, will tell us. He will have to learn them and apply them and, somehow or other, he will have to acquaint himself with all the purposes of the Bill and the public policy behind it at any given moment, including, as my hon. Friend said, the number of immigrants who have already come in and the maximum number to be allowed. When is he to do this? Are we to set up special schools to instruct the officers charged with these duties how to keep British subjects out of Britain?
I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider this matter. Certainly, no such powers ought to be delegated to Customs officers, and there is no necessity for setting up a new class of special immigration officer without experience of any kind. If these powers have to be exercised, let them be exercised by the immigration officers who already have considerable experience. They will have enough added to their job as it is, but at least they will be able to co-ordinate it with and relate it to the powers they have been exercising in the past. If it is really necessary in order to make this Bill operate effectively and to do the things contemplated by this subsection, then it is merely one more formidable reason for saying that the Bill should never have been introduced.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: May I say without offence to anyone that I hope we shall be very brief today. It will be a tragedy if the Committee stage of the Bill finishes without the Schedules being discussed. That is a grave danger that we are in. I shall, therefore, try to keep my speech as brief as possible.
Our general reputation as a country depends on the Bill as a whole, but our immediate reputation, the way in which the world looks at British immigration policy, will depend on how we arrange things under the Bill at the ports. For that reason, I wish to put three points to the Home Secretary.
First, may we have an assurance that the immigration officers who will be appointed under this subsection will not be uniformed? One of the good things about our immigration system is this. If we pass through it at London Airport

or at the docks, as we come in we are met by people in civilian clothes, who hand us our passports. I do not want Britain to follow other countries in having, as it were. a Gestapo-like ring round our ports and airports of uniformed people who appear to have a great deal of power, perhaps a great deal of power which they should not have, because they are wearing uniforms. I hope that we shall continue the strong tradition of having courteous men dressed in civilian clothes to meet us at the ports and to meet immigrants.
Secondly, I should like an assurance that as soon as this system is operating there will be a check to make sure that there are enough such men. One of the tragedies in all countries is to see the queues of people at immigration desks at ports and airports. We as British citizens, when we land here, go through the Customs fairly quickly, because it is merely a matter of making sure that we are British citizens and that we are not on a stop list. But imagine the difficulty which will be created when all British passports have to be examined separately. It will be terrible if we have those long queues of people which sometimes pile up at ports and airports in many other countries.
May we have a specific assurance that things will be worked out properly so that they go like clockwork when people from the Commonwealth come here? If only one entry permit or passport is in dispute, that may mean delaying 50 to 200 people. If, as I have often seen, only one man is dealing with one aeroplane-load of passengers—it is not the fault of the officials; it is merely the way in which things often work out at London Airport—then some people may have to wait for an hour before getting through. This sort of thing must not happen.
My last point concerns Customs officers. Unless I am ill-informed, I am under the impression that the Customs service has not any spare men. I understand that it is not over-manned, like those highly-paid, lucrative positions in our society which are attracting an excess of labour. I do not want passengers and travellers other than immigrants to be delayed because Customs officers who can ill be spared


are seconded to do the work of immigration officers. That will only give us a very bad reputation in the world.
If we can have a general assurance that every attempt will be made to show humanity, speed and efficiency at the ports combined with assurances on the three points which I have raised, we may be able to feel a little happier that this system will work without too much difficulty

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I do not wish unduly to delay the Committee, but merely to follow a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I do not wish to repeat the arguments which have been advanced for the exclusion of this provision, but I think that we should have same assurance about how the Customs officers will be selected.
My hon. Friends have made it clear that the job of Customs and Excise officers is quite complicated, and one for which the men concerned have to have a considerable amount of training. If some of them are taken from their Customs work to become immigration officers, the Government must either alter their training so that every Customs and Excise officer is trained as an immigration officer as well, or there must be a different grade of Customs and Excise officer who is capable of doing immigration work. A change from the present procedure is proposed, and it seems unworkable.
I should like an assurance from the Government Front Bench that they have considered the implications of retaining this part of the Clause and have some specific ways and means whereby, if the Home Secretary decides that he should have recourse to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, he knows what he will ask for and that the men he asks for will be qualified to do the job for which he wants them.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) did a useful service by tabling his Amendment. It does not raise such momentous matters as he would have led the Committee to believe, but I am glad of this opportunity to explain how this matter of using

Customs officers will work. The practice of using them to do this work has been tried for many years under the Aliens Order. It has been found satisfactory and helpful. May I say at once, to remove any misconception, that they will not be used generally. They will be used only casually and occasionally.
Under existing arrangements, Customs officers act on behalf of immigration officers at some small seaports and at same airports which take mainly internal traffic, and they are employed at those seaports and airports because enough goods arrive from abroad to make it worth while having a Customs officer at them. But not a sufficient number of aliens arrive at those ports to make it worth while having an immigration officer there. We should not expect that enough Commonwealth citizens would arrive at those small ports to make it worthwhile having an immigration officer.
May I give examples of the ports involved? I have two examples, Ramsgate, in Kent, and Par, in Cornwall. Valley, in Anglesey, is an example of a small internal airport at which there is an immigration officer. There are one or two other examples. When Customs officers are acting casually and occasionally in those places they receive the same administrative instructions from my right hon. Friend as the immigration officers receive. In future, they will receive instructions in the same way.
With the aid of those instructions, they are able to deal with the straightforward cases, but they refer cases of doubt, by telephone in the first instance, to an immigration inspector. An immigration inspector is merely one of the grades above an immigration officer. An important point to remember is that we have a definite rule, which we shall continue to operate, that no Customs officer may refuse anyone leave to land in this country without consulting an immigration inspector.
I now turn to one or two of the detailed points which have been raised. I was asked what consultations there have been with the Customs officers. Of course, we would not deal directly with them. We have had consultations with the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
I was also asked about searches of women. The hon. Member for Islington, East was quite right in saying that women should be searched only by women. In this respect, in a sense, the Customs Service has an advantage over the Immigration Service, because it employs women specially for searching women for Customs purposes. These women are also available for search for immigration purposes.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am not quite clear on this point. The Customs authorities make their own arrangements, but under the Bill only the immigration officer is to have power to search. Presumably he will not be allowed to delegate that power. My hon. Friend's question has not been answered by the Minister.

Mr. Renton: I know that there has been no difficulty about this in practice, because there has been authority under the Aliens Order for the immigration officer to employ women police or women officials for the purpose of searching women. I will make sure on this point in order to satisfy hon. Members that the arrangements are properly tied up in the same way for the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Charles Royle: I wish to be clear about this matter. Sub section (2) of the Clause deals with immigration officers and not with Customs, although it provides for Customs officers to be used as immigration officers. What are they to search for if they are Customs officers acting as immigration officers? What is the search about?

Mr. Renton: If the hon. Gentleman refers to paragraph 1 (3) of the First Schedule, he will see that it contains a power to search for documents.

Mr. Fletcher: Before we leave this question of search by women officers, is the hon. and learned Gentleman telling us that there are women Customs officers at Par and other outlying places in Anglesey and elsewhere?

Mr. Renton: Yes. I understand that wherever the Customs has arrangements for examining goods coming into the country—wherever there is a Customs officer—there is a woman officer employed by the Commissioners of

Customs and Excise to carry out any searches of women which may be necessary.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. and learned Gentleman refers to a "woman officer". Is she a Customs officer? Unless she is, she will not come within Clause 16, and there is the risk that women immigrants will be stripped and searched by men unless there is a woman Customs officer.

Mr. Renton: She is not a Customs officer, but a woman employed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. It is a very fine distinction.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has fully appreciated our point, or perhaps we are at fault. In the aliens law, there is no doubt that a search will be carried out by a woman officer employed or directed by an immigration officer to do it. It is conceded that it is the Government's intention that under the Bill a woman shall not be searched except by a woman. The doubt that arises is whether, in the Bill, there is any power to implement that intention, because it says that only a Customs officer can search. Unless there are women Customs officers, this cannot be carried out.

Mr. Renton: This is quite a simple point and it is all in order. I must not anticipate too much, but if hon. Members will turn to the First Schedule they will see that paragraph 1 (5) deals with a number of matters concerning the powers of an immigration officer, including the question of search, and that it says that his powers
may be exercised also…in the case of the powers of search conferred by sub-paragraph (3), by an person acting under the directions of an immigration officer.
I think that that clears the matters up.
4.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) asked how a Customs officer or an immigration officer was to be identified as a person who has the right to exercise the powers under the Bill. A warrant of authority to act in accordance with the Bill will be issued. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) asked a related question about the wearing of uniforms. He suggested that there is a


tradition of courtesy on the part of officials wearing civilian clothes, but rather implied that it was different when officials were wearing uniforms.

Mr. Chapman: No.

Mr. Renton: I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member will agree that British officials are no less courteous when wearing uniform than when wearing civilian clothes.

Mr. Chapman: Are these officials to wear uniforms?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman also said—and I hope that he was in order—that he wanted these arrangements to go like clockwork. He has almost taken the words out of our mouths in saying that. We also want them to go like clockwork, but he gave London Airport as an example of a place where passengers coming in are examined by one official per plane. If that has been true in recent years, it is not true now. It is a long time since that happened. If he cares to come with me on any day he likes to name, and without warning, he will see that the arrangements are working like clockwork, handling an increased amount of traffic.

Mr. Chapman: I agree.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman also asked about staffing. He will see, from the description I gave earlier, the very limited amount of work under the Bill that Customs officers will have to do. They are the people who are at these small ports. Indeed, no additional Customs officers will be required, but more immigration officers will be needed.

Mr. Chapman: What about uniforms? The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered that question.

Mr. Renton: Immigration officers have never worn uniforms and will not do so. Customs officers have worn uniforms and will continue to do so.
We can summarise this interesting and useful discussion by saying that, if we were to accept the Amendment, we should be faced with a considerable dilemma. Either we would have to post immigration officers to places where there was not nearly enough work for them to do because there would not be enough

passengers—in which case it would be wasteful to employ them there—or we would have to leave these places completely unmanned by anyone to carry out the power of examining immigrants. That might well become an attractive way of circumventing the control. It is best to let the Customs men have the power they have used so carefully and without trouble for so many years.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that I was right in my interpretation that it is not the Home Secretary's intention to appoint a special class of immigration officers for the purposes of the Bill, except on those occasions when he appoints Customs officers to do the job?

Mr. Renton: Yes, that is quite true.

Mr. Fletcher: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply to mean that normally Customs officers will not act as immigration officers—in other words, at none of the great ports or airports will they ever have to act as immigration officers—and that the use of Customs officers will be limited to these out of the way places. That being so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Pavitt: I beg to move, in page 11, in line 27, at the end to insert:
 being duly qualified medical practitioners.
This is a small but an extremely vital Amendment, and I hope that the Government will accept it. The provisions of Part I of the Bill have made it quite clear that one of the most important aspects of the Bill is the ability, for health reasons, to stop Commonwealth citizens from coming into this country. This is an extremely vital thing for the person wishing to come here.
We have discussed previously in Committee the effect which this could have on the whole livelihood and future of a man and his family by the fact that when he reaches our shores he finds that, for health reasons, he is excluded. Therefore, it is vitally important that every safeguard we can possibly insert into the Bill shall be made to make sure that, if a Commonwealth citizen is excluded for health reasons, those reasons are extremely valid ones. Although, in Clause 16, we use the term "medical


inspectors" it is obvious that if a medical examination has to be made, and a medical decision has to be reached, it must be done by a qualified medical practitioner.
It might be thought that this could be taken for granted, but I am surprised at the way in which, in other fields, some unqualified medical practice takes place. I was even surprised recently in the House to find that a medical service for hon. Members is the responsibility, in the first instance, of the Metropolitan Police, worthy though they are, being trained in first aid.
In consequence, I am rather concerned lest we shall have a situation at ports or airports in which a State registered nurse—and, again, I defer to nobody in my appreciation of the work which State registered nurses can do—or people with these qualifications, shall have to decide whether or not a person is fit on medical grounds to enter this country under the provisions of the Bill.
One of the provisions specifically mentioned in Part I deals with mental disorder, and it seems that, even if we have a qualified medical practitioner, it is extremely difficult, in the case of a person coming into this country, to diagnose within a short time whether mental disorder is present or absent. The question of normality has been discussed from time to time, and the question of how many of us are normal or abnormal. It has been suggested that any person who arrives at this place must be a little bit out of the ordinary; otherwise, he would never come here.
People wishing to enter this country, if they are to be examined as to mental stability, need to be examined by people who are qualified to declare in that respect. Already, in other aspects of public life, we have very sure safeguards in legislation passed from time to time about due qualifications, and these are inserted to safeguard the individual from a wrongful decision.
The other question that arises here is the fact that there is at present a shortage of doctors. It could be that, in the same way as we have learned from the discussion on the previous Clause that there may be a shortage of immigration officers, who will have to be buttressed by Customs and Excise

officers, so there may be, whatever the intentions of the Government, a shortage of qualified doctors, who will have to be buttressed by medical orderlies of one description or another, who will be given charge in certain circumstances and be doing this specific job.
It will be extremely unjust and unfair to immigrants coming to this country if it happens that, merely by chance or accident, at the place at which one arrives, he may get a fully qualified medical practitioner, while in another place it is a medical orderly, a State registered nurse, or somebody with some medical knowledge but who could not, in any sense of the term, be called a qualified medical practitioner.
This is rather aggravated when, at the moment, we rely, in the National Health Service particularly, on doctors who are coming from the Commonwealth countries to serve in our hospitals, or in general practice, or with the local health authorities. It would be the height of folly to ask somebody from Pakistan or Jamaica to come here and accept a post as senior hospital officer or junior registrar, and, when he gets here, to find that he is excluded by a medical orderly or somebody who is not as qualified medically as he himself may be.
For these and other cogent reasons, with which I do not want to weary the Committee—I do not want to go into the whole question of the General Medical Council and all the other aspects that can arise in connection with people described as fully qualified medical practitioners—I think that the case is sufficiently made for the Amendment. We should have the absolute assurance that in no circumstances shall a situation arise at any time or at any place in which an immigrant can be excluded from entering this country by somebody who is not a fully qualified medical practitioner.

Mr. Renton: My advice to the Committee is to accept this Amendment. There is a very short point which I should put in advising the Committee to accept it. The Amendment refers only to "duly qualified medical practitioners". There is a precedent for using that expression in statutes, and


we are not likely to go wrong in using it here. Strictly speaking, it would have been better to have referred to "registered medical practitioners", but, as there is precedent for both expressions, there can be no harm in accepting the one which the hon. Member chose.

Amendment agreed to.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. C. Royle: I beg to move in page 11, line 36, at the end to insert:
The power to give intructions under this subsection shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and any statutory instrument setting out such instructions shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
We have discussed two very important Amendment this afternoon, and I am grateful that the Home Secretary has seen fit to accept the one which has just been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). Here, I think it fair to say, we come to something a little more important than the two previous ones, because there is involved here a parliamentary principle which we on this side of the Committee desire to press.
I personally have been so concerned about the Bill from the moment that it was mentioned in the Queen's Speech that I made up my mind that I would have a look at the situation in some of the countries from which our immigrants come. Accordingly, I spent the Christmas Recess in Jamaica and in the West Indies generally. I was amazed by the terrible confusion in that part of the Commonwealth about the terms of the Bill.
Time after time the Home Secretary has spoken of a liberal application of the Bill. We take his word for it, but, at the same time, there is deep anxiety. The Amendment is designed to achieve another important safeguard. Parliament has been concerned about the new principle of erecting barriers against immigrants from the Commonwealth, and it is only right and proper that it should have an opportunity of saying something about the instructions which are to be given to imigration officers. Here we are dealing not with the actions of immigration officers, but with the instructions which the right hon. Gentleman will give to them.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that before Report he will tell us what those instructions are to be, but that is hardly sufficient, for this is a very important matter on which Parliament should have an opportunity to express itself. While many of us trust the right hon. Gentleman implicitly, and hope that his instructions will be in accordance with the liberal application of which he has spoken, it is not unfair to ask that those instructions should be presented to Parliament. I know of our rush to get things through, and I do not want to talk too long, but a major principle is involved and I want Parliament to have an opportunity of being able fully to debate the instructions which the right hon. Gentleman will ultimately give to his immigration officers.

Mr. Chapman: I support the Amendment by referring to Clause 17 (4)—from which the words of the Amendment under discussion are taken, so that there can be no misunderstanding about drafting—under which the Secretary of State's powers to grant exemptions are to be exercised by means of a Statutory Instrument. The power to give instructions to immigration officers, by which whole sections of people in borderline cases will be excluded, is on all fours with the sort of exemptions which the Home Secretary will be able to make under Clause 17 (4). If it is right for the power to make exemptions to be contained in Statutory Instruments, and thus subject to consideration by Parliament, these important instructions should also be the subject of a Statutory Instrument.
It is not a bad thing to have every possible Parliamentary safeguard and opportunity to raise these matters. If, after a few months' operation, there are amendments to these instructions, as there may be, and an amending Statutory Instrument has to be laid, it is important that we should have the opportunity as well as the safeguard of raising the subject of the administration of the Bill in Parliament.
We have already taken the Home Secretary with us a long way in that he has finally agreed to publish these instructions. I hope that he will now go a step further and agree that there would be no harm if we formalised them so


that these important issues of British citizenship and Britain's reputation in the Commonwealth and the rest of the world could be discussed in the House, and so that the House could have the opportunity of annulling the Statutory Instrument containing the instructions.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have already undertaken that the general instructions to immigration officers about categories of persons to be admitted shall be published as a White Paper between the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. I take this opportunity to tell the Committee that I hope that that White Paper will be available on Friday. I think that that implements my undertaking.
The Amendment would go further than that and would require all instructions to take the form of a Statutory Instrument, which would be subject to the negative Resolution procedure. The proposal is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the instructions. They are, in the nature of things, working rules as to the actions which immigration officers should take in certain specified circumstances and, as hon. Members will see when they read these instructions before the weekend, they are not expressed in legal or formal language. They would be useless for their purpose if they were. It has been a considerable departure from precedent to publish them at all, although I have been only too glad to do so. But I think that some informality in the relationship between the Secretary of State and his officers should be preserved.
It will also be necessary from time to time to adjust the instructions in the light of experience of working the Bill. Anybody who has held the office of Secretary of State must know of the particularly intimate relationship between the Secretary of State and his officers. It would not even be fair to Parliament to have to go through the formality of making a Statutory Instrument every time a minor change in the instructions was made. I recognise the interest of hon. Members in the instructions, and information about changes of any consequence which are to be made will always be made known to Parliament,

but I think that the Statutory Instrument form is inappropriate.
We are waiting until the end of the Committee stage to publish the instructions so as to be able to amend them up to the last minute in the light of points which arise in our debates. Final approval will be given by myself late tonight, or early tomorrow morning, when we have concluded the Committee stage of the Bill. The Amendment as drafted refers to all instructions, whether general or particular, but the instructions which we are publishing will not cover absolutely every case. The Committee will realise that we would not publish instructions in cases of security. Otherwise, however, they would generally cover all the points, in which hon. Members have shown interest, namely, those relating to students, wives, residents, and the way to handle all types and categories who come in.
I hope that the instructions will be of value to the Committee. I recognise the legitimate interest in them which hon. Members have shown and I hope that the steps I have taken are appropriate for a discussion by the House, for, presumably, the instructions will be able to be discussed either on Report or, as I hope, if the Chair so rules, on Third Reading. It is a matter for the Chair, but I do not see why such discussion should not be in order on both occasions, if further discussion is desired.
I consider that it would be wrong to take this action by Statutory Instrument and I hope that I have already met the wishes of the Committee by agreeing to publish the instructions.

Mr. Fletcher: I regret that the Home Secretary has not accepted the Amendment, because, as our discussions on the Bill have shown, we attach the greatest importance to what is contained in these instructions, and we think that we should have the fullest measure of parliamentary control over them.
We appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has met us to some extent by saying that he will publish the instructions before the Report stage, but since they are not to be laid in a form that will be available for normal discussion, such as a Statutory Instrument, this is the only occasion before they are


published to put certain points to the Home Secretary about them.
The right hon. Gentleman said last week, and repeated today, that one of the reasons why he is holding up publication of the instructions to immigration officers is that he wants to take account of what is said during the Committee stage, and, therefore, I invite him to clear up a point I made a little while ago with regard to the highly ambiguous statement of the Attorney-General last week.
The Attorney-General, in resisting our Amendment that there should be an appellate tribunal to decide finally whether an intending immigrant was eligible under Clause 2 (2), because he was student, or because he had a job to go to, or because he could prove that he had some means of supporting himself in this country, said:
In many cases, admission may be refused not on account of any personal idiosyncrasies of the individual, but because sufficient numbers have already been admitted to the country for that particular time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 354.]
Will the Home Secretary therefore please take this opportunity of saying whether he accepts or repudiates that statement?
Are we to understand that some perfectly deserving eligible immigrants will be told that they will not be admitted for reasons which have no relation whatever to their personal claims, and, as I submit, their personal rights to admission, but will be rejected because, in the opinion of the Home Office, sufficient numbers have already been admitted? Will the Home Secretary please take this opportunity of telling us whether the number of immigrants who will be allowed in over and above those who are entitled to come in under Clause 2 will be announced in these instructions to the immigration officers and whether the number will be made public to the House, and how the immigrants will know whether they will be refused admission?
As the Attorney-General said that they may be refused permission to enter not because of personal idiosyncrasies, but because of the totally adventituous fact that a certain number of people have already been admitted in the last month,

or last quarter, or whatever period the Home Office may decide. This is something about which we must be informed.

Mr. S. Silverman: With a great deal of reluctance I am constrained to admit that there is some force in the Home Secretary's argument about making these instructions subject to annulment in some kind of statutory form. I am not sure that it establishes the case anything like completely to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend, but I see some point in it.
I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman in what he said about the opportunity to discuss the instructions when he has published them in the form of a White Paper. He concedes by his argument the desirability that the House should have an opportunity of discussing them, and on that we are in agreement, and there is no need to take up the time of the Committee to argue it further. But having conceded the desirability that the House should have that opportunity, I find myself unable to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his prognostications of how the opportunity will arise.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that it would be a matter for the Chair, and far be it from me to try to impose further limitations on our debate. I should like to think that the Home Secretary is right and that they will be so discussed, but for the moment I cannot see how. On Third Reading, we are limited to discussing matters which are in the Bill, and, as the Home Secretary has insisted throughout our discussions that these instructions cannot be in the Bill, it is difficult to follow his reasoning when he says that we will be able to discuss them on Third Reading. If the right hon. Gentleman carries his point that the instructions shall not be in the Bill, he is, by implication, saying that we cannot discuss them on Third Reading. I say no more about that, because at the moment I cannot see any reply to that argument.
4.45 p.m.
The other opportunity which the right hon. Gentleman suggested for discussion was on Report, On Report, we do not have the opportunity of any general discussion on the Clauses. We have only a set of Amendments on the Notice


Paper, and even these are subject to selection by the Chair. Unless, on Report an Amendment designed to bring the instructions into the Bill is tabled—and this, ex hypothesi, is excluded already—there cannot be such a discussion. I am, therefore, at the moment at a loss to understand how on Report, or on Third Reading, the House will have the opportunity which the Home Secretary concedes that it ought to have to discuss the instructions when he has published them after the conclusion of the Committee stage.
It seems to me that there is an incapacity in the House to do what everyone, including the Home Secretary, wants to do, namely, to have a general opportunity of debating as a whole and in detail the instructions that are to appear in the White Paper and which the Home Secretary is ultimately to give.
I am ready to be satisfied that there will be an opportunity to discuss the instructions, but before expressing an opinion as to whether my hon. Friend should divide the Committee on his Amendment, I should like to hear a good deal more of how this opportunity for discussion will arise.

Mr. Donald Wade: I hope that there will be adequate opportunity to discuss these instructions. I should have thought that it would have been possible to discuss them on Third Reading, or on Report if the appropriate Amendment were tabled, and I hope that the opportunity will arise.
The question I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman arises out of the observations of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). Would not it be practicable to make same distinction between instructions dealing with the day-to-day duties of the immigration officers, and those involving important questions of policy? In the latter case, surely it is not sufficient merely to inform the House. I am thinking of an instruction involving quotas, to which the hon. Member for Islington, East referred. Surely the quotas should be decided by the House.
There should be some procedure, perhaps by way of an affirmative Resolution, whereby the House could express an opinion, but I recognise that it would

be difficult to deal with instructions relating to day-to-day duties by Statutory Instrument. Can some way be found of drawing a distinction between those two types of instruction?

Mr. R. A. Butler: The hon. Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman) paid me the compliment, I think for the first time for some years, of agreeing with what I said. He went so far as to say that there was some force in my argument, and I therefore feel very much flattered.
The hon. Gentleman raised a good point about the opportunity for debate. I hasten to repeat what I said about a debate on Third Reading, that it is entirely a matter for the Chair. My experience is not as great as that of the Chair, but I believe that it will be possible to discuss this; but it is, of course, a matter for the Chair.
On Report, it will be possible for an hon. Member on either side of the House to table an Amendment which would bring the discussion of these instructions into order. I do not know whether the Opposition now intend to serve on the Business Committee which will consider the Report stage of the Bill. If their objections to the Bill are so strong that they cannot bring themselves to attend the Business Committee, I will make myself available for discussions with them on how this can be done.
It is clearly in the interest of the Committee and, when we come to all the considerations, in the interests of the House that hon. Members' views on this document, which is not very long, should be taken, and they would be of great value to the Government and to myself. I shall make myself available for any discussions with hon. Members on both sides of the House in relation to an opportunity on Report, leaving the question of an opportunity on Third Reading to be decided by the Chair. I hope that hon. Members will regard that as a fair offer at this stage.
I do not think that all the arguments of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) were in order on this Amendment. I am perfectly ready to answer them as best I can, provided that we do not get into a general discussion of Clause 2, which I hope will be further discussed on Report stage. I hope that in arranging our business for the


Report stage we will give more time to Clause 2. The hon. Gentleman referred to the remarks of the Attorney-General, and I can only say that, in column 354 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, if he will turn to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill, he will see the following words:
The intention is that vouchers for this purpose will be issued to persons who can show that they have a job to come to, to those who possess training, skill or educational qualifications likely to be useful to this country, and to applicants outside these categories subject to any limit which the Government may from time to time consider necessary.
It is this last quota, as I understand it, to which my right hon. and learned Friend was referring. If that enlightens the hon. Gentleman in any way, that is the best answer that I can give at short notice on this point. I underline the words in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum:
…subject to any limit which the Government may from time to time consider necessary.
We must reserve this as a Government decision, and that is the answer to the intervention of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade).

Mr. Fletcher: In order that the immigrants may know where they stand, will the Home Secretary tell us when he will announce what these numerical limits are to be? Will they also be made public so that we in the House of Commons and the intending immigrants may know what the quota is to be?

Mr. Butler: I cannot take that further an this occasion, or indeed for a long time ahead, because it must be according to circumstances. As I said in an earlier speech in Committee, we wish to ensure for these people socially and economically a good position in these islands, and we can only decide these things when we take these matters into consideration at the time. I cannot give any particular figures at this stage.

Mr. Fletcher: Surely these figures will be given to the immigration officers or they will not know when the limit has been reached which will entitle them to refuse admission. Are these instructions to immigration officers about the numbers to be contained in these instructions, and is this information to be made public?

Mr. Butler: We cannot reach a decision about the exact total number of immigrants that may be desirable until we have seen the first operations of the Act and the workings of categories A and B, that is the person who can get a definite job, the person who is skilled and the person who is educationally qualified. We cannot say how the Bill will work and what the internal situation in the country will be until the Bill is in operation. We intend to operate it in a liberal way, but we cannot lay this down ahead.

Mr. George Brown: In saying that, the Home Secretary is giving away the case for the Amendment. If he is allowed to do this administratively at any stage he may choose, or for any reasons he may choose and for any number he may choose, and there is no way by which the House of Commons may call him to book and ask him to explain or defend, we are handing over to the Executive an enormous power.
The Home Secretary has not told us why he should be entitled to do this. It seems to me that he has done this deliberately because he could not possibly avoid, in any other way, the argument being put from this side. If the instructions to be given under the subsection have in some form to come before the House of Commons, then the Home Secretary, who may well think that he is being liberal, but may not quite appear in that guise to everybody else, has to prove his liberality. If the instructions do not have to come before the House of Commons, then there can be enormous room for hole-in-the-corner methods.
It does not seem to me that the Home Secretary has made his case at all. It may be that there is a case for him having this power. I express no opinion on that, but if he thinks that there is surely he must be prepared to defend its exercise. He cannot be asked to defend it unless his exercise of it is made subject to a discussion in the House of Commons.
The Amendment is not of a very revolutionary kind. It asks that any instruction given in this way shall be subject to annulment, that is, to the negative


Resolution procedure. We were all very touched with the anxiety with which the right hon. Gentleman accepted the accolade from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but that I was not very clear from the way in which it was bestowed, that it was an accolade and I think that the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman rather emphasised his isolation at this moment.
There is not much in the Amendment. It merely asks that the Home Secretary shall be able to issue his instructions, shall be able to make his decisions and shall, if the House of Commons calls upon him to do so—this is what the annulment procedure means; it does not mean that he has to come here to do it—be ready to defend them.
The Attorney-General, who is apt to lurch rather more bluntly into these things than the Home Secretary does in his more deliberate way, made it clear on 6th February that there will be many cases, not some, not the odd case but many cases, where admission may be refused on issues which have nothing to do with the individuals, but have to do with the Government's decision about the number of people who may be admitted. I should have thought that there was no issue which the Government could more properly be called upon to defend than an arbitrary decision that a certain number is the right one.
I ask the Home Secretary to look at this matter again. So far, he has put forward no argument in its defence. He used the words "at this short notice", so I presume that he meant that he had not thought about it before. We are very sorry about that and we are prepared to give him more time to think about it. All that he has said is that at this short notice his decision is that this matter should not be challengeable in the House of Commons. I ask him, as a House of Commons man with a great feeling for this place, whether he can think of any other issues which ought to be as challengeable in the House of Commons as this. I ask him to think again about this and to give us an opportunity to challenge any decision which the Executive may make about numbers by allowing us to make this subject to the negative Resolution procedure.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the Amendment. If he cannot do so this afternoon, I hope that he will keep in mind the possibility of incorporating it in the Bill on Report. My right hon. Friend said that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) conferred the accolade on the Home Secretary. I can only say that when the sword gets near him it will be moving horizontally and not vertically.
I do not believe that the House will be without its resources, even if the Home Secretary is obstinate, because every one of these acts will be an administrative act, and it will always be possible on a Supply Day to raise the question of his salary and to devote some time to a consideration of any action he takes under this provision. Parliamentary Questions are nothing more than nuisances to a Minister; I want to be able to do something that will put him in jeopardy—the sword moving horizontally.
Let us suppose that we have a quota system, and that we have reached the last two vacancies, and that one immigrant appears at Liverpool, another at Southampton, and a third at London Airport. A servant of the Minister will have to decide how to deal with that position. The possibilities of administrative difficulty are so great that it would obviously be wise if the Amendment were embodied in the Bill at some stage, so that we could have a proper discussion in a general way.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am not sure that I follow all the geometrical arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I know nothing about accolades. I do not want to add to anything that I have said, or to derogate from it. The difficulty about the Amendment, in relation to the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), is that it would not meet his point.
It is true that such an important matter as this should be subjected to the opinion of the House and, if possible, to a vote—and it ought to be possible to defeat the Government if they arrive at the wrong quota, or administer the provision in the wrong way. If we accept


the Amendment we would certainly oblige the Government to put all their instructions into a Statutory Instrument and submit them to be discussed here, but a discussion is all that we would get, because under the procedure of a Motion to annul a Statutory Instrument we can cast out the lot or accept the lot, but we cannot amend. We should never succeed in getting a vote on the point which my hon. and right hon. Friends wail to be dealt with.
There is a great deal of force in what the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) said about trying to find some way of distinguishing between one class of instruction and another, so that all the administrative points can be dealt with in the way the Government want, subject to the House's finding the opportunity of discussing them at some stage before we part with the Bill, while the other class of instructions, which go to the root of the matter and involve important questions of policy, will have to be introduced by way of Statutory Instrument, one by one, and separately.

Mr. G. Brown: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with great interest. As I understand it, he is asking the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Silverman: indicated dissent.

Mr. Brown: As I understand it, he is saying that the Amendment would not do what we want it to, which I take it to be advice to the Committee not to accept it. Does not my hon. Friend agree that if the Amendment were accepted there would be a Parliamentary opportunity to discuss it, whereas if it is defeated there will be none?

Mr. Silverman: My right hon. Friend was not here during the earlier part of the discussion or he would not have fallen into the error that he has made. I have never advised the Committee not to accept the Amendment. If it decides to divide upon it I shall support it, and vote with hon. Members on this side of the Committee. All I said was that over a wide area of these instructions the argument of the Home Secretary had some force in it.
What I am now trying to do—and I am trying to be helpful—is to find some

way in which we can distinguish between those instructions which ought to be discussed by the House but which nevertheless are administrative matters for the Minister, and those which involve important questions of policy, in connection with which the House rather than the Government should have an opportunity not merely of discussion but of decision.

Mr. Chapman: The unfortunate thing is that under the guillotine procedure an Amendment which would have done precisely what my hon. Friend wanted was never discussed. It was an Amendment to Clause 2, which would have subjected to this Statutory Instrument procedure all decisions concerning the number of vouchers and the quota. I hope that my hon. Friend will now tell the Home Secretary that while he agrees with him about not being able to have detailed instructions in the form of Statutory Instruments, the right hon. Gentleman should nevertheless keep his mind open to the possibility of accepting an Amendment on Report concerning the Statutory Instrument procedure and the quota system under Clause 2.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend is quite right. I will go a little further than he is inviting me to go. If the Amendment it withdrawn the Home Secretary should undertake, on Report, to accept some such Amendment as that to which my hon. Friend has referred. Then everybody would be satisfied. We would have a general opportunity of discussing the broad field of all instructions, and an additional legislative opportunity to deal with these special matters which involve important questions of policy, as and when the Government make up their mind about what powers they want. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept that suggestion.

Mr. C. Royle: I confess that I am very unhappy with the reply of the Home Secretary. He read his answer, which was most unusual for him. The impression I received was that he had got something in writing that he was going to say before he heard the arguments put forward by hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I very much regret that fact.
I want, first, to deal with the quota question. When I was in Jamaica one of


the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends made a statement to the Press there saying that it was the Government's intention to have a quota of 40,000 immigrants. I do not know how this could possibly be worked, but I got the impression that a supporter of the Government had some knowledge of their intentions in the matter. If a Conservative back bencher can think of a set figure I have a feeling that the Government also have that figure in mind.
My other point concerns procedure. I am a member of the Chairman's Panel, and I cannot think for a moment that Mr. Speaker would agree to our discussing something of this character in a Third Reading debate. It is not contained in the Bill, and it will not be

contained in it when we reach the Third Reading.

It is obvious that another Amendment will have to be moved on Report. What is the use of our arguing about it now? Why cannot the Amendment accepted, instead of our having to wait for the Report stage? We have had no assurance that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to put down such an Amendment, even if the wording is changed. Unless we can have this assurance I must ask my hon. Friends to press the matter to a Division.

Question put, That those words, be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 191, Noes 256.

Division No. 83.]
AYES
[5.10 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Gourlay, Harry
Mayhew, Christopher.


Alnsley, William
Grey, Charles
Meillsh, R. J.


Albu, Austen
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mendelson, J. J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Millan, Bruce


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Milne, Edward J.


Awbery, Stan
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Monslow, Walter


Beaney, Alan
Hannan, William
Morris, John


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Moyle, Arthur


Bence, Cyril
Hayman, F. H.
Neal, Harold


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Healey, Denis
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Benson, Sir George
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Oliver, G. H.


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Oram, A. E.


Blyton, William
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oswald, Thomas


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hilton, A. V.
Owen, Will


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Holman, Percy
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bowles, Frank
Holt, Arthur
Parker, John


Boyden, James
Houghton, Douglas
Parkin, B. T.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Paton, John


Brockway, A. Fenner
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pavitt, Laurence


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hoy, James H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Peart, Frederick


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pentland, Norman


Callaghan, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, Ernest


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hunter, A. E.
Prentice, R. E.


Chapman, Donald
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Probert, Arthur


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Proctor, W. T.


Cronin, John
Janner, Sir Barnett
Randall, Harry


Crosland, Anthony
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rankin, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jeger, George
Redhead, E. C.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Rhodes, H.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Deer, George
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Ross, William


Delargy, Hugh
Kelley, Richard
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Dempsey, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Diamond, John
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Short, Edward


Dodds, Norman
Ledger, Ron
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Edelman, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Small, William


Evans, Albert
McCann, John
Snow, Julian


Fletcher, Eric
MacColl, James
Sorensen, R. W.


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
McInnes, James
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Spriggs, Leslie


Forman, J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Steele, Thomas


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mahon, Simon
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stonehouse, John


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Manuel, A. C.
Stones, William


Ginsburg, David
Mapp, Charles
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mason, Roy
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)




Symonds, J. B.
Warbey, William
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Watkins, Tudor
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Weitzman, David
Winter bottom, R. E.


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Woof, Robert


Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Whitlock, William
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Thorpe, Jeremy 
Wilkins, W. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Timmons, John
Willey, Frederick



Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wade, Donald
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Mr. Sydney Irving and


Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Lawson,




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Litchfield, Capt. John


[...] W. T.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Errington, Sir Eric
Longbottom, Charles


Allason, James
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Longden, Gilbert


Arbuthnot, John
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Loveys, Walter H.


Atkins, Humphrey
Farr, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Barber, Anthony
Finlay, Graeme
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Barlow, Sir John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Stephen


Barter, John
Forrest, George
MacArthur, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Freeth, Denzil
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton
Gammans, Lady
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)


Bell, Ronald
Gibson-Watt, David
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Gilmour, Sir John
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Berkeley, Humphry
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Biffen, John 
Gough, Frederick
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Raymond
Maddan, Martin


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Maginnis, John E.


Bishop, P. P.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Black, Sir Cyril
Green, Alan
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bossom, Clive
Gurden, Harold
Marten, Nell


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray


Box, Donald
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J-
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mills, Stratton


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Montgomery, Fergus


Braine, Bernard
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Brewis, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, William


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Morrison, John


Brooman-White, R.
Hastings, Stephen
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hay, John
Nabarro, Gerald


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Bryan, Paul
Hendry, Forbes
Nugent, Sir Richard


Buck, Antony
Hiley, Joseph
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Bullard, Denys
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hocking, Philip N.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hollingworth, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hopkins, Alan
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hornby, R. P.
Pearson, Prank (Clitheroe)


Chataway, Christopher
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Peel, John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Percival, Ian


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Peyton, John


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Cleaver, Leonard
Iremonger, T. L.
Pitman, Sir James


Cole, Norman
Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Collard, Richard
Jackson, John
Pott, Percivall


Cooper, A. E.
James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Prior, J. M. L.


Corfield, F. V.
Jennings, J. C.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Costain, A. P.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carilsle)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Coulson, Michael
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pym, Francis


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rees, Hugh


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Renton, David


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Dance, James
Kitson, Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lagden, Godfrey
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)


Deedes, W. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roots, William


de Ferranti, Basil
Leather, E. H. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Leavey, J. A.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Leburn, Gilmour
Seymour, Leslie


Doughty, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Drayson, G. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, M.


du-Gann, Edward
Lilley, F. J. P.
Shepherd, William


Duncan, Sir James
Lindsay, Martin
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Eden, John
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Smithers, Peter







Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Walder, David


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Walker, Peter


Speir, Rupert
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Stanley, Hon. Richard
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wall, Patrick


Stevens, Geoffrey
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Stodart, J. A.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Webster, David


Storey, Sir Samuel
Turner, Colin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Tapsell, Peter
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wise, A. R.


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Woodhouse, C. M.


Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Vickers, Miss Joan
Woodnutt, Mark


Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Worsley, Marcus


Temple, John M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)



Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. McLaren.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17.—(EXEMPTIONS.)

Mr. Wade: I beg to move, in page 12, line 24, at the end to insert:
or
(d) being the spouse or child, stepchild or adopted child under the age of twenty-one years of a person of a description specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of this subsection".
By now the Home Secretary will be becoming familiar with this wording, as I have moved similar Amendments to other Clauses. When discussing Clause 1, dealing with the general subject of immigration, I moved an Amendment the effect of which was to allow a wife and family of an immigrant to come into this country and not to be subject to control under Part I. The Government expressed a preference for that to be dealt with under Clause 2 and an Amendment was moved to Clause 2 by the Government. It did not go so far as I wished, but it dealt with this subject in principle. On Clause 6 I raised a similar question, but I was less successful.
The purpose of subsection (2) of Clause 17 is to exempt from control three categories of person. I think a fair summary of these categories is: (1) a member of the home forces subject to the Naval Discipline Act, 1957; (2) a member of any Commonwealth force or any force raised under the law of any Colony, Protectorate or protected State, coming to this country to serve or to undergo training, and (3) a member of the forces of any country designated for the purpose of any provision of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the wife and family of such a person will also be admitted to this country if they so wish. I suggest that

this is a reasonable Amendment. As the principle was accepted by the Government on Clause 2, I hope that a similar provision will be accepted on this Clause.
This morning I was discussing defence with a defence expert. Obviously it would he very much out of order to discuss that now, but I asked him, "How is it that in the earlier days of this century when we had such very wide commitments we were able to man all those outposts of empire?" His answer was, "The Indian Army." Today, with lesser commitments, we have very great difficulty in finding the necessary manpower.
We are having to recruit from various parts of the Commonwealth, including the West Indies. It may well be that we shall find this recruitment from the West Indies of increasing importance. As an aside, one may say that it is perhaps a little anomalous that as a result of this Bill we shall not recruit our forces from Southern Ireland but allow Southern Irish in free while, on the other hand, we recruit forces from the West Indies but impose immigration controls upon them.
I am informed—if this is not correct I hope I shall be told so—that the practice is for West Indians to be called upon to pay their own passage to this country if they are to serve in our forces and that they come here for six months on trial. It seems a little unreasonable that they should have to pay their own fares, but I am told that that happens at present. We are relying on recruitment from the Commonwealth. If they are willing to help us in our defence, surely we should permit their wives and families to come here. If they have to pay their fares it is doubtful whether they can afford to bring their wives and families. I should have thought that we


should establish the principle clearly in this Bill.
It may be suggested by the Government that this matter can be covered by subsection (3), which gives the Secretary of State power to extend exemption by order, but throughout discussion of the Bill we have been told so often to rely on the discretion of the Home Secretary. I think we should ensure that principles such as this—which is a very reasonable one, providing for the wife and family of a man who is to serve in our forces—should be written into the Bill. I hope the Government will see fit to accept the Amendment.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): Wives and dependent children up to the age of 16 of Service men coming here will be admitted under the Amendments made to Clause 2. The Amendments to Clause 2 embrace a wife or child under 16 years of age. They would be admitted.
Clause 17 is rather different from Clause 2. Its purpose, in subsection (1), is to grant exemption from both Part I and Part II to those who have total immunity from process, not only for their official acts, but also for their personal acts—that is to say, ambassadors and people of that sort and, in the case of a Commonwealth country, High Commissioners as well. Subsection (2) deals with those who are to be exempt from the entry provisions which are contained in Part II. It does not exempt them from deportation under Part II. It is concerned with those on whom generally there are controls other than those provided by this Bill.
I think the substance of the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) is met by the Amendment made to Clause 2, subject, of course, to the difference for the dependent child up to 16 in one case and 21 in another case. As will be seen—subject to any Amendments made today—when the instructions we have been debating earlier today are published, a very large and ample discretion will be given to immigration officers for dependent children, certainly those up to the age of 18. Higher than that it might be rather dangerous to go, although if they

are in fact dependants they will be admitted.
If one reads the strict letter of this Liberal Amendment, one finds that it does not mean that the family need be here at all. It is possible, for example, for a child of someone not in this country but subject as a member of the home forces to the Naval Discipline Act and stationed at Singapore to come in absolutely free to the United Kingdom at the age of 20 without any of the tests to which under Clause 2 and other Clauses he would be liable. As the Amendment is drafted, that would be perfectly possible. Such a person is technically a member of the home Forces.

Mr. Wade: Rightly so.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Yes. The hon. Member may think that all people should be let in free of restriction.

Mr. Wade: If someone from the West Indies came here, joined our Forces, was then sent overseas and wished for some good reason to have his family stationed in this country, would that position be covered by the Bill as at present drafted without the Amendment?

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Yes. His wife and his dependent children up to the age of 16, if he is stationed here so as to be resident here—

Mr. Wade: But if he is not stationed here?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That raises a very nice point. If he is not stationed here but is stationed somewhere so that this is not his home base at all, his dependants and his wife would not be automatically admitted under Clause 2. If he is based here even though serving abroad, but in such a way as to be ordinarily resident here—in the case of the Navy, for example, if his home port is Portsmouth, Chatham or Devonport—even though he may be serving temporarily abroad, his wife and family would certainly be admissible under Clause 2.
It he is a citizen from overseas who does not have that connection with the United Kingdom, it seems to us anomalous that his son, say aged 20, who may be simply coming here in an ordinary way to get a job, like many


of his contemporaries, should not have to pass through the same controls as his contemporaries will have to pass through. It would be, as it were, adventitious that his father happened to be a member of the Forces who was not resident here.
For children up to the age of 16 and for wives, the position is provided for already in the Bill. For children up to the age of 18, as I think the Committee will see, the position is provided for in the instructions. Beyond that age, if they are dependants and are coming as dependants, because they are dependent upon their father, and not independently, they will be admitted, because it is right that they should be.

Mr. J. Grimond: I have a high regard for the Joint Under-Secretary, but in spite of that regard I was astonished by part of the argument he has just advanced. He appears to think it anomalous that this country should allow into Britain the wives or families, if they are over 16, of people whom it has conscripted to fight for it and for the Commonwealth, unless they are based in Britain.
I submit that the Committee cannot accept this argument. It surely cannot accept the argument that it is all right to conscript people, or to induce people as mercenaries, from the West Indies to fight for the Commonwealth, but when it comes to having their wives or children in this country it is a very different matter. That is a matter which must be looked at very carefully—presumably to see if they are respectable. They are good enough to fight, but they are not good enough for us to allow their children or their wives to come here, unless they are based here. That, as I understood, was the Joint Under-Secretary's argument. He went on to say that if they are based here we may be good enough to extend some concession to them, but they will have no right to come to this country. I am astonished by that argument.
I can understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier point that children under 16 and other people may be covered by Clause 2, but the Committee must repudiate the latter part of his argument. It is clear that if we are at the end of the Bill to have any standing whatever in the eyes of the Common

wealth we cannot go on record as saying, "We want you to come and fight for us, but unless you are based in this country do not expect to be able to bring your wives and children here, unless they are under 16 or unless they have satisfied an immigration officer."

Mr. S. Silverman: Like the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I am utterly astonished at the argument advanced by the Joint Under-Secretary. I am all the more astonished when I compare the argument he advanced to keep these people out, or at any rate not to give them a right to enter, with what he has already done in an earlier part of the Bill. My Amendment in page 12, line 19, to leave out paragraph (c), has not been called, and I cannot debate it, but the hon. and learned Gentleman should appreciate the absurd contrast between the argument which must have led him to leave this paragraph in and the argument which prevents him from accepting this Amendment.
I will tell the Committee what it means. This Clause exempts some people from the operation of the Bill. Naturally, those of us who dislike the Bill altogether are reluctant to oppose any provision in it which exempts anybody from its operation, but paragraph (c) should be looked at closely in connection with the argument adduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Paragraph (c) offers a wonderful opportunity to a Commonwealth citizen from whom the Bill takes away the right enjoyed up to now to enter the United Kingdom and who wants to evade that prohibition and continue to exercise his right to enter, in spite of the Bill. All he has to do as a Commonwealth citizen who is prohibited from entering is to join a foreign Army. If he joins a foreign army and an Order in Council has been made, or comes to be made, giving that foreign Army the benefit of the Visiting Forces Act, he can no longer be excluded from his homeland. A person cannot come in if he is a member or a relative of a member of a Commonwealth Army. A person cannot come in if he is not a member of any Army. But if somebody joins the German Army and the German Army is allowed to send a contingent to which he belongs to be trained here,


his right to enter his homeland is restored. He is exempt from prohibition.
What an extraordinary provision! The more one looks at it the more extraordinary it becomes, because as I understand the Visiting Forces Act, once the Order in Council has been made and the—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the Amendment on to the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act.

Mr. Silverman: I fully understand that, Sir Norman. All I am doing is pointing to a reason why the Committee ought not to accept the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman advanced for rejecting the Amendment. I am saying that it is so wholly inconsistent with other provisions that he has made and which we cannot challenge that it makes no sense at all and the Committee should reject the argument. As I understand the Visiting Forces Act, once the Order in Council has been made and the contingent from the foreign Army is here, they are no longer subject to our laws. They are exempted from them by the Visiting Forces Act.
There is the odd position, in view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the Amendment, that a Commonwealth citizen is excluded by the Bill from entering. If he joins a foreign Army and the foreign Army is allowed here, he is allowed to come here, although once he is here he is not subject to the laws of this country but to the laws only of the country of the Force of which he is a member.
To make the thing more anomolous than ever, although one is exempt from the provisions of Part I which would otherwise keep one out, once one is in, exempted from Part I, Part II still applies, so one can be deported. They cannot prevent one from coming in but can deport one.
Let hon. Members contrast that with the situation that this Amendment was designed to meet. I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not here—I am told that he is, and I am delighted. I hope that he will give us a reply, because the Under-Secretary was not member of the

Government at the time when the Visiting Forces Act was passed, and I do not know whether he remembers our discussions then—in any case, I shall not repeat them. The Home Secretary knows about that Act, and I am sure that he appreciates the force of my argument.
The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to accept very graciously the rather half-hearted compliment I paid him in a previous debate, and it is possible that he might now reciprocate. I then said that there was some force in his argument, and I am sure that he appreciates that there is some force in mine. If he intends to persist in the rejection of this Amendment, surely at some suitable opportunity, as we proceed with the Bill, he should look again at this reductio ad absurdum of the whole argument contained in subsection (2, c.)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am sorry to have lost the esteem of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). The origin of this desire to give wives and children special treatment in coming to this country was the very natural one of preserving the unity of the family. I remember one right hon. or hon. Member opposite saying, "Whom God has joined together, let not the Secretary of State put asunder". It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend obtained the Amendments to Clause 2; so that the family should be treated as a unit, and so that, if the head of the family is here, the wife and dependent children should be admitted pretty well without question because they depend upon him.
If the head of the family is not here, which was a point that aroused the ire of the right hon. Gentleman, the argument about a family being torn asunder does not apply. That was why I said that if the head of the family is based on this country—not here temporarily, but based here—the rules relating to the preservation of the family will apply, but that if he is not here permanently, or based here, those rules do not apply. That is why, I drew the distinction, and for that reason I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not feel it is an unworthy, illogical or invalid distinction, however much he may dislike wives and children—and any one—being kept out at any time.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), with great ingenuity, attached his argument to the Liberal Amendment, but it related to a totally different point. I do not suppose that he would be any more keen than others that the wives and children of members of visiting forces should be allowed to come here—the Germans going to South Wales, and that sort of thing. I do not know that he is particularly concerned with that. It is a quite different point, and I therefore hope that he will not think me discourteous if I do not answer his general commination of the Visiting Forces Act, and the steps taken under it.

Mr. S. Silverman: There was no commination at all. We are not discussing the Visiting Forces Act, or any arrangement with foreign countries to allow foreign troops to come to this country. All I say is that we shall have an anomalous and ridiculous situation if we allow people who join foreign armies to come here without let or hindrance and yet reject this Amendment.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: First, there is a purely drafting point which I believe to be of great importance, and which has been raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Subsection (2, b) relates to "any Commonwealth force" and paragraph (c) relates to
…a member of the forces of any country designated for the purposes of any provision of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, by Order in Council…
Is it not correct to say that that is not exclusively referable to Commonwealth forces but to foreign forces as well; that, therefore, as a matter of interpretation, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is perfectly correct; and that, therefore, this is something that goes outside the ambit of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and relates to far wider issues and to foreign forces?
Secondly, following on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, we might have a West Indian coming to this country. He is trained briefly here in transit, say, for Kenya or—one hopes not, but it is possible—Northern Rhodesia, or some other part of our

Colonial Territories and, at the end of the year, knows that he is to be posted back here. Some three or four months before he is due to return—that is to say, before he becomes based—he wants his wife and children to come to this country to set up house. In those circumstances will he have the right for his relatives to come here, or is that still only a matter of special favours being granted by the Home Secretary?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Paragraph (c) applies only to members of what I may call foreign armies who are also citizens either of independent Commonwealth countries or of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I use the phrase "United Kingdom and Colonies" as an omnibus term, because that is the technical expression, although the "United Kingdom" part of it may be somewhat misleading. It is therefore unlikely that the paragraph will deal with many people.
On the other matter, I can give the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) an undertaking that in the situation he envisages, that is to say, if a Commonwealth citizen has come here, has enlisted, and has been sent somewhere to do a job for that sort of period but wants his family home in England on his return, they will be admitted.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 12, line 24, at the end to insert:
or,
(d) is a bona fide servant of the government of any Commonwealth country or colony, visiting the United Kingdom on the business of his government".
This is a simple Amendment, and I hope that it commends itself to the Under-Secretary. The point I am raising is a simple one: that many constituent parts of the Commonwealth have officials and servants who, monthly, if not weekly, journey between London and their home countries on matters concerning the Commonwealth, their countries' relations with Britain, and who represent part of the general traffic of officials between London and all parts of the Commonwealth.
Many of these officials will not, as I understand it, fall under Clause 17 (1). In other words, many of them will not


be of a sufficiently high rank of officialdom whereby they are entitled to immunity from suit and legal process. The point of the Amendment is that it is utterly humiliating for officials of minor rank on arrival at our ports to have to prove, every time they come here, the specific purposes for which they are coming and to ask for entry on each occasion. This would be completely outside the sort of thing I am sure all hon. Members would wish to have happen as a result of the Bill.
I would much rather see the sort of system whereby an official of this kind would simply have stamped in his passport the fact that, for the time being, he is an official of whatever part of the Commonwealth it may be, journeying to London or various parts of the world—or however the constituent country would wish to phrase it—on the specific business of his country. In these circumstances, he would, on arrival at the port, simply have to produce this page in his passport and that would be a simple method of securing him immediate entry without all the humiliating business of having to go through the immigration officers who would have to go into the exact reasons for his coming here.
One of the best examples of this is the sort of official who will be concerned with the operation of the Bill. The West Indies are now having to appoint more officers to help with the flow of migrants to this country. Officials of this kind are at the moment in monthly, if not weekly, consultation with Government Departments here to work out the operation of the Bill. They must come to the ports like anyone else, but, after the Bill becomes an Act, they will have to justify their entry every time they arrive, answer many questions and there will be no automatic process whereby they may be given immediate entry.
It is essential that these people should be granted automatic and complete immunity from the operation of the Bill. This Amendment contains a straightforward principle and I hope that the Government will accept it without further question.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: One of the things that this Amendment would not do if it were passed would be to give the people described by the hon. Gentleman the

Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) complete exemption from the operation of the Bill, because he has attached it to subsection (2) which only exempts them from Part I and not from Part II.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point, however, that it is wrong that such people should in any way be harrassed or held up at the ports if they are on important official business. It is for this reason that Clause 17 (3) was included in the Bill so that additional classes of persons may be added to those who either should have complete immunity, as the hon. Gentleman wants, or partial immunity, as subsection (2) envisages.
There will be a long and fluctuating list of classes to cover these people, who are not the grand officials carrying full immunity and have it in their passports and who are, anyway, easily recognised. It was considered that it would be unwieldy to have such a list in the Bill, but that it should be made by Order which would have to be laid according to subsection (4). Thus, if the hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member think that there are too many or too few on the list there will be an opportunity for them to say so.

Mr. Fletcher: If it only comes up by way of Statutory Instrument, what can hon. Members do about it?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I realise that it will not be possible to amend it, but great attention will be paid to any argument, if it is a good one, that either it is not comprehensive enough or that it extends immunity too far. This happens in other matters concerning governmental immunity. It is often said that it is extended too far and, as I say, it can be debated and the Government would take note of the comments made.
It is for that reason, in general, that the point of the Amendment is substantially met by the Bill and by the Statutory Instrument which it envisages. The difficulty always exists that it cannot always be entirely comprehensive. I concede that to the hon. Gentleman at once. There is no intention to make the official prove his business, but should he not be included in the list of those who may be admitted freely then it is desirable that he should prove his identity. He will not be asked why


he is coming here, or how long he proposes to stay, and so on. He will be asked to prove—if he says that he is here on a Government mission and he does not happen to be in the list included in the Statutory Instrument for the time being—his identity and show a document saying that he is the Mr. X concerned.
That does not seem to be particularly humiliating. We frequently all have to prove our identities by the production of our passports, or some other document. If the man is not on the list that my right hon. Friend will append to the Statutory Instrument, there is no intention of subjecting him to any humiliation.
I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman, who ha; a good point, to recognise that this is substantially met by subsection (3). If he is determined that these people should have all the advantages of those coming under subsection (1), I ask him to help us when we come to lay the Instrument.

Mr. Fletcher: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) will press his Amendment, in view of the disappointing and unsatisfactory reply from the Minister of State. It is not good enough to say that these people can rely on the Statutory Instrument. We cannot continually amend it to cover the different classes of people who will come here on Government missions from the various parts of the Commonwealth.
Here is an opportunity for the Government to say clearly that bona fide servants of Commonwealth Governments can be exempted. We are continually

being told that the Government intend to operate the Measure in a liberal way, yet when they are given an opportunity of doing something definite they make these kinds of excuses for resisting an Amendment which would make it perfectly clear that certain people are entitled to come here without being asked a lot of questions.

The fact that the Government take it upon themselves to raise these flimsy excuses for refusing to accept a reasonable and modest Amendment of this kind belies all the assurances we keep receiving from them about the humane, sympathetic and generous way in which they intend to treat Commonwealth subjects. The very opposite seems to be their intention, judging by their attitude towards this reasoned Amendment and I hope that my hon. Friend will press it to a Division.

Mr. Chapman: I am very disappointed by what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I know that he meant to be helpful. That is the strange part of it. But what he said was not really helpful. What will happen now is that in the hands of every immigration officer will be a list showing every kind of official who is to be admitted, all the undersecretaries or people up to a certain rank—

It being Six o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 198, Noes 262.

Division No. 84.]
AYES
[6.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Brockway, A. Fenner
Dodds, Norman


Ainsley, William
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Driberg, Tom


Albu, Austen
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Edelman, Maurice


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Callaghan, James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Awbery, Stan
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Chapman, Donald
Evans, Albert


Beaney, Alan
Cliffe, Michael
Fletcher, Eric


Bellenger, Rt, Hon. F. J.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)


Bence, Cyril
Crosland, Anthony
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Forman, J. C.


Benson, Sir George
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Blyton, William
Davies Ifor (Cower)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Ginsburg, David


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Deer, George
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Bowles, Frank
Delargy, Hugh
Gourlay, Harry


Boyden, James
Dempsey, James
Grey, Charles


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Diamond, John
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)




Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McInnes, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Small, William


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mahon, Simon
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hannan, William
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Snow, Julian


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Manuel, A. C.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hayman, F. H.
Mapp, Charles
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Healey, Denis
Marsh, Richard
Spriggs, Leslie


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)
Mason, Roy
Steele, Thomas


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mayhew, Christopher
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mendelson, J. J,
Storehouse, John


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Millan, Bruce
Stones, William


Hilton, A. V.
Milne, Edward
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Holman, Percy
Mitchison, G. R.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Holt, Arthur
Monslow, Walter
Symonds, J. B.


Houghton, Douglas
Morris, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Birr)
Moyle, Arthur
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Neal, Harold
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hoy, James H.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oram, A. E.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas
Timmons, John


Hunter, A. E.
Padley, W. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Parker, John
Wade, Donald


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Parkin, B. T.
Wainwright, Edwin


Janner, Sir Barnett
Paton, John
Warbey, William


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence
Watkins, Tudor


Jeger, George
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Weitzman, David


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Frederick
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pentland, Norman
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Popplewell, Ernest
White, Mrs. Eirene


Jones, Dan (Bumley)
Prentice, R. E.
Whitlock, William


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Probert, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Proctor, W. T.
Willey, Frederick


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Randall, Harry
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Kenyon, Clifford
Rhodes, H.
Williams, W. R (Openshaw)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Ledger, Ron
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Ross, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lipton, Marcus
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Woof, Robert


Loughlin, Charles
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Edward
Zilliacus, K.


McCann, John
Silverman, Julius (Aston)



MacColl, James
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Redhead and Mr. Lawson.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bullard, Denys
du Cann, Edward


Aitken, W. T.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Duncan, Sir James


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Duthie, Sir William


Allason, James
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Eden, John


Arbuthnot, John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Atkins, Humphrey
Cary, Sir Robert
Errington, Sir Eric


Barber, Anthony
Channon, H. P. G.
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Barlow, Sir John
Chataway, Christopher
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Barter, John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Farr, John


Batsford, Brian
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Finlay, Graeme


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cleaver, Leonard
Forrest, George


Bell, Ronald
Cole, Norman
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Collard, Richard
Freeth, Denzil


Berkeley, Humphry
Cooper, A. E.
Gammans, Lady


Biffen, John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Biggs-Davison, John
Corfield, F. V.
Gibson-Watt, David


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Sir John


Bishop, F. P.
Coulson, Michael
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Goodhew, Victor


Bossom, Clive
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Gough, Frederick


Bourne-Arton, A.
Critchley, Julian
Gower, Raymond


Box, Donald
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Grant, Rt. Hon. William


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Currie, G. B. H.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Dalkeith, Earl of
Green, Alan


Braine, Bernard
Dance, James
Gurden, Harold


Brewis, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Deedes, W. F.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Brooman-White, R.
de Ferranti, Basil
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bryan, Paul
Doughty, Charles
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Buck, Antony
Drayson, G. B.
Hastings, Stephen







Hay, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Shaw, M.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Shepherd, William


Hendry, Forbes
McMaster, Stanley R.
smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Hiley, Joseph
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Smithers, peter


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Maddan, Martin
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hocking, Philip N.
Maginnis, John E,
Speir, Rupert


Holland, Philip
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Hollingworth, John
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hopkins, Alan
Marten, Neil
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hornby, R. P.
Mawby, Ray
Stodart, J. A.


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Mills, Stratton
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Montgomery, Fergus
Tapsell, Peter


Hughes-Young, Michael
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morgan, William
Taylor, Frank(M'ch'st'r, MossSide)


Iremonger, T. L.
Morrison, John
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Temple, John M.


Jackson, John
Nabarro, Gerald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


James, David
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Jennings, J. C.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Joseph, Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow, West)



Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Turner, Colin


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Partridge, E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Peel, John
Vane, W. M. F.


Kitson, Timothy
Percival, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Lagden, Godfrey
Peyton, John
Vickers, Miss Joan


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Leather, E. H. C.
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Leavey, J. A.
Pitman, Sir James
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Leburn, Gilmour
Pitt, Miss Edith
Walker, David


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pott, Percivall
Walker, Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Lilley, F. J. P.
Prior, J. M. L.
Wall, Patrick


Lindsay, Sir Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Ward, Dame Irene


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Pym, Francis
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Litchfield, Capt. John
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Webster, David


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Rawlinson, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Whitelaw, William


Longbottom, Charles
Rees, Hugh
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Longden, Gilbert
Renton, David
Wise, A. R.


Loveys, Walter H.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Ridsdale, Julian
Woodhouse, C. M.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)
Woodnutt, Mark


McAdden, Stephen
Roots, William
Worsley, Marcus


MacArthur, Ian
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard



McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Scott-Hopkins, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Seymour, Leslie
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N.Ayrs.)
Sharples, Richard
Mr. McLaren.


Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, put and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Six o'clock.

Clauses 18 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(ADDITIONAL EXEMPTION ARISING FROM SERVICE IN SECOND WORLD WAR.)

The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any Commonwealth citizen coloured or white who served or was wounded or maimed in the second world war or whose parents., brothers or sisters served were wounded maimed or killed in the said war.—[Mr. Lipton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee unduly, because there are other new Clauses which should be discussed before we part with the Bill. The new Clause with which I am concerned speaks for itself and I hope that it will meet with the acceptance of the Minister of State, who will, no doubt, tell us at an early stage the Government's reaction to it.
Surely it would not be right, notwithstanding all the arguments that we have heard on other Clauses, that this class of citizens of the Commonwealth, white or coloured, who have demonstrated their loyalty to this country and have


made sacrifices in demonstrating it, should come within the provisions of the Bill.

Brigadier Sir John Smyth: I do not think that any hon. Member could accuse me of not being sympathetic towards the class of people who are dealt with in this new Clause, particularly since I have served with coloured troops for a great part of my life, but I think that we should consider the new Clause rather carefully and should realise what it means.
It would apply not so much to West Indians, but particularly to Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians and Pakistanis and certainly to people in parts of Africa. The first question which strikes me is why we should confine the new Clause to people who served in the Second World War. What about the First World War? I cannot see how we could possibly exclude Far Eastern prisoners of war and internees. They might add up to a very large total, including parents, brothers and sisters, and, in any case, it would be very difficult to check on them. There is no question of barring these people any more than there is any question of barring Commonwealth immigrants of one class. The Bill merely seeks to impose a check on them.
Let us consider the Far Eastern prisoners of war on whose behalf I moved a Motion in this Chamber ten years ago, as a result of which our own ex-prisoners received about £5 million. We realised then it would be impossible to cater for all the prisoners of war and internees of India and Pakistan. That would have stultified the whole scheme absolutely and entirely. I therefore insisted that, in particular, India, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand should make their own claims in respect of their own Far Eastern prisoners of war and internees. If we had not done that, we should have been swamped and our own Far Eastern prisoners would have received nothing.
6.15 p.m.
I feel very strongly about this matter. If we accept the new Clause, it will mean that we are holding out a particular encouragement to the people with which it deals to come to this country outside the ordinary provisions of the Bill. If

we are to encourage these people to come here, I feel that we should accept some responsibility for them. For instance, we could not have a lot of war disabled people in this country and not provide them with houses, pensions and some means of subsistence. It would be very wrong if we did.

Mr. Fletcher: I am trying to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, because I know of his interest in this matter. Am I not right in thinking that these people have been free to come here at any time since the end of the war? Is there any reason to think that if we exempt them from the provisions of the Bill it will stimulate them to come here? They could have come here at any time in the last sixteen years.

Sir J. Smyth: I think it will, because, in a sense, it is proposed to make special provision for them in this new Clause. It is proposed to make a special exception of them. I am in sympathy with the idea behind the Clause and would like to help all those who have been maimed or wounded in the cause of the Commonwealth if we could. But if we extend the welcome to them which is proposed in the Clause, we should have to ensure that they were properly looked after. It is not as easy and simple a matter as the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) made out.

Mr. C. Royle: I support the new Clause. I have been drawn to my feet by what the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) said. Is not this an opportunity to show that we are sympathetic towards the people dealt with in the Clause? Our experience is that in many parts of the Commonwealth wounded ex-Service men are not receiving a pension and are relying completely on charity. I discovered that in the West Indies during the last few weeks. Surely we have some responsibility in this matter. If we have to carry the terms of the Clause to the extent envisaged by the hon. and gallant Member with regard to pensions, and so on, would not that be a good thing, and would not we be accepting a responsibility which is really ours?
I agree completely with the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood when he asks why the Clause should be restricted to those who served in the Second World


War? I quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) for having specifically named a particular war. I, too, am long enough in the tooth to have been a First World War soldier, and I am concerned about ex-soldiers of that war just as much as about those wounded or maimed in the Second World War.
Would you, Sir William, be prepared to accept a manuscript Amendment to delete the words "second world" in line 2 of the proposed new Clause, so that it might cover people maimed in any war on behalf of the Commonwealth?

The Chairman: No. I am not prepared to accept a manuscript Amendment at this stage, but the point can be fully discussed.

Mr. Royle: It seems to me that a manuscript Amendment might make this a better Clause.

Mr. Lipton: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) that, if it is the desire of the Committee to make this Clause apply to all wars of which there are survivors, I should be most happy to alter it.

Mr. Michael Foot: I wish to add one or two points, particularly in view of what was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth). I do not think that his arguments were persuasive. Even if this were a matter of encouraging more of these people to come here, I think that that would be a perfectly proper and reasonable thing to do. Surely, however, the main purpose of this Clause—it illustrates the squalid nature of the Bill that we should have to discuss such a proposal—is to avoid shocking scandals from damaging this country's good name. It would be a shocking scandal if persons from the Commonwealth, who had fought and been wounded in the cause of this country, were refused permission to enter. It would make them advertisements for the illiberality of the Bill.
I would have thought that the Home Secretary would agree to accept the Clause so as to avoid, or, at any rate, mitigate, the bad feeling that the Bill is bound to arouse. I cannot see how any hon. Member could properly vote

for the proposition that people, or the close relatives of people, who fought for this country in the Second World War or any other war should be excluded from the right to come to this country.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I do not wish to make a speech, but I want to be clear, Sir William, about the answer you gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle). Before I ask you my question, however, I want to admit my share of the responsibility in this matter. This Clause has stood on the Notice Paper for days, and we could have taken action before now to extend it to cover people who served in other wars. We are, therefore, all responsible. Would you be good enough to reconsider whether you could not accept a manuscript Amendment, so that we could vote on the two things together?

The Chairman: My mind is never closed, but I have no intention so far of acceding to the hon. Gentleman's request. The Committee is well able to deal with the point in general. Amendments could be made at a later stage if that were desirable.

Sir Barnett Janner: I think that the point that has been raised about a manuscript Amendment would be met if the Minister of State, in his reply, said that this Clause was a reasonable proposal and that he would take the opportunity at a later stage of amending it to include all wars. The whole point of our proposal is that anybody who has served in either of the major wars or in any other war in aid of our country should at least have the right to come here.
At a time of stress and strain, such persons served the country in a substantial way. With the greatest respect to the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth), for whom I have the highest regard, I cannot understand the strength of the argument he has put forward. After all, if a person has been injured in the service of the Commonwealth as a member of the Armed Forces I can see no argument which can properly be used to deny him the right of receiving some kind of compensation, and proper compensation, for the injuries that he has sustained.
When such a person was serving, he was doing so equally with everybody else in a certain cause, and in that cause, equally with everybody else, he was subject to the possibility of injury. How can we then say that we are not entitled to give, or that we should be prevented from giving, assistance to a man who has so served? I cannot see that the Government are, morally at least, justified in refusing to accept the Clause.
This is not a party matter, but one which all who served in the Armed Forces feel is of vital importance, to which the fullest consideration should be given, and to which a concession—if it is a concession—should be made. Up to now, anyone injured in the war could come to this country and receive certain compensations. Why stop that now?

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: The hon. Gentleman is forgetting that the Dominions paid their own men while we paid the Colonial Service men. The two cases are, therefore, different. I would support this Clause for the men themselves but not for the relatives. Again, the Dominions also provided pensions. The Canadian soldier was paid by the Canadian Government and the Australian soldier by the Australian Government, as was the case with other Dominions.

Sir B. Janner: I know that, but it counteracts the argument that these people would flood into the country. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas) is saying that some parts of the Commonwealth which were affected are already doing something equivalent to what we are doing here. That is all we are claiming in this Clause, and, consequently, it disposes to some extent of the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood, who was saying that we should not have this imposition placed upon us.
We regard ourselves as one Commonwealth unit when it comes to fighting for a cause. Any of these men or women could come to this country to join units here, in the same way as any person from this country could join a Commonwealth unit. It was all in the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole. I do not think that we should be

heard to say that the question of compensation or assistance to such a person to regain his health or to maintain his condition of health is not one for us. Here is a moral claim. Say what they will, the Government are trying, at the least, not to give the same rights as we did before when a person had done his share in the common enterprise. There is no moral reason for the Home Secretary to resist this appeal to allow these people to come here.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Pavitt: I rise to make quite a brief point, but, before doing so, I should like to make a comment on the contribution of the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Brigadier Sir J. Smyth) to the debate. I felt that he had some sympathy with this new Clause, and I hope that he will find his way clear to give it his acceptance. I understand that the point he made is that he would like to see a provision enabling people to come to this country if they are adequately housed and have adequate facilities. This is the whole point of the Bill. If the Government had a housing policy which not only made provision for housing our own people adequately as well as Commonwealth immigrants, the Bill would probably be unnecessary. I think that the point that the hon. and gallant Member made about opening the floodgates is, after sixteen years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) said, quite irrelevant.
The small point that I wish to bring to the attention of the Committee is an extension of what I should like to see accepted in this Clause—a very liberal interpretation of the word "service" to include not only those who served in the Armed Forces, but also those people from British Honduras who came over here at a time when we were very short of manpower and were also particularly short of timber. Had it not been for the people from British Honduras being prepared to leave their own homes, go up to Scotland and live in very different climatic conditions, we might not have got the timber which was so vitally needed. I think that "services" should include not only service in the Armed Forces, but also those people who gave service in other parts of the economy at home which were very much needed.
I do not wish to raise again the arguments used so effectively by my hon. Friends. I see no moral justification for the Government rejecting this Clause. This is an iniquitous and shocking Bill, but this Clause will put some little humanity into it if the Government accept it.

Mr. Tom Brown: I have no desire to prolong the discussion on this very important Clause, but I am stirred by the argument advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth). We all know the hon. Member's interest in the British ex-Service man and those wounded in war, and he was only extending and expressing his practical sympathy with those who, unfortunately, have been wounded and who come from overseas.
The consensus of opinion so far expressed in the Committee is that this Clause should be accepted, and your suggestion, Sir William, means that, perhaps on Report, if the Clause is now accepted, consideration will be given by the Home Office to extending its application to victims of the First World War. In this Clause we are asking for something that should be done without asking for it. From the Bill we are leaving out people who ought to be included.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) has just said, this is a bad Bill, but there is no reason why we should not put in here and there something that is good. The Clause is something that is good. It will affect not hundreds but thousands of coloured people who assisted this country by their great bravery and devotion in both the First World War and the Second World War. Surely we are not now to deny that right to them, because it is a right and they are entitled to it.
I hope that the Government will respond to our request, because already the consensus of opinion of hon. Members of the Committee is such that it is proved conclusively that we are in favour of the Clause being inserted in the Bill, subject to consideration being given between now and the Report stage to its terms covering those who served in the First World War.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), I think that there is something shocking in this. I feel a sense of national humiliation that the Government will not accept this Clause.
I should like to direct the attention of the Minister to the possibility of our having to rely upon Commonwealth personnel in the future to defend Britain. How can we ask them to defend this country, if that defence is necessary, when we are now saying to them that, irrespective of whether they were maimed in the last war or their fathers were killed in the last war, and irrespective of the consequences of that war, in which they were defending Britain, they are not allowed to come into this country?
It is pertinent to ask what would be the message which the Government would send to Commonwealth nationals if, in future, we required them to make the same type of contribution to the defence of this country because of external danger.

Mr. Renton: I cannot claim anything like the distinguished military service of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth). Nor have I ever, like the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle), taken part, as I believe he did, in a cavalry charge in the First World War. Having served in the Second World War with men from at least four countries of the Commonwealth, I should like to endorse most sincerely the tributes which have been paid to them today by hon. Members of this Committee. The fighting men from the Commonwealth played a very valiant and vital part indeed in our war effort.
The purpose of the new Clause is therefore one to which we are obviously sympathetic, and if it were feasible to devise a scheme which would give effect to it, we should be thankful to do so. Unfortunately, neither the provisions of this new Clause, to which I shall refer in detail in a moment, nor any of the other proposals which we have considered along the same sort of lines, forms a workable basis.
The more one considers the matter, the more serious do the practical difficulties of interpretation become. They


are difficulties which do not at first meet the eye. I ask hon. Members to look at the terms of the Clause. I am sorry that neither of the hon. Members who put it dawn on the Notice Paper has taken part in this debate, because they might have been able to explain, as others could not so well, exactly how they felt it might work out.
There are various difficulties. In the first place, is it right to confine a right like this to members of the Armed Forces only, when, as the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) pointed out, there are civilians who did valuable work for the allied cause? One cannot help thinking of the civilian internees under the Japanese, who suffered very greatly. Then there is the question of length of service. Presumably, hon. Members who favour a proposal of this kind did not have in mind a period of a few days or weeks in a recruit training depot, but, as the Clause is drafted, of course, somebody with one day's service would qualify for complete exemption under the Bill.
We should not overlook the fact that there were some Commonwealth countries which had conscription for a great part of the war, notably Australia and New Zealand. A high proportion of men aged between, say, 35 and 50 in those countries would gain exemption, whereas there are countries which are now independent countries of the Commonwealth, such as Nigeria, where there was no such conscription. It might be regarded as discrimination in favour of those countries which had conscription if we were to operate in this way.
Then there is the question of wounding or maiming and what degree of injury constitutes a wound. How is an immigration officer to know whether an immigrant who claims to have been wounded in war was wounded on duty or on leave, for example? It is rather hard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas) said, even with the most generous approach to this matter, to come to the conclusion that the brother or sister of a person who was wounded should gain complete exemption. We believe that any attempt to base exemption from control on past records rather than on present circumstances would inevitably

produce anomalies, and anomalies in these circumstances tend to be injustices and it would lead to great difficulties of interpretation of any provision which might be drafted.
I want to give the Committee one or two assurances, because we are sympathetic to the broad purposes of those who support the new Clause. It is easy to give the first assurance. It is that members of Commonwealth Forces, past, present, or future, will have no difficulty in gaining admittance as genuine visitors. That is not something to be overlooked, because there are many members of the Armed Forces who served in the war and who might wish to come here as visitors and who would be able to do so. Secondly, members of present Commonwealth Forces coming here on duty are exempted by Clause 17. My right hon. Friend has also asked me to say that immigration officers will be asked to deal sympathetically with any case in which it is claimed, and clearly appears, that the person concerned served our cause in either of the two great wars.

Mr. C. Royle: Will that be in the White Paper?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who was making his first and very welcome intervention in our debates on this Bill—

Mr. Dingle Foot: Mr. Dingle Foot (Ipswich) rose—

Mr. Renton: I would rather answer those who have been present throughout the debate, but I would be glad to answer the hon. and learned Member later—suggested that this was a sort of quasi-civil right which could be claimed. I wonder whether he has appreciated that if we wrote it into the Bill as a right it would have to be proved as a right to the satisfaction of the immigration officer.
Might it not be much better, instead of putting people to strict and somewhat formal proof, that the immigration officer should hear what people have to say and then judge for himself the validity of their claim, bearing in mind the request that he should deal with such claims sympathetically? If we start writing specific rights into the Bill in the way suggested, we may be acting not so kindly and sympathetically as the hon. Member would wish.

Mr. T. Brown: The hon. and learned Member has misunderstood me. He is meeting trouble half way. These people had the right to fight for us and they fought nobly and courageously and with a great deal of devotion. Nobody should underestimate the patriotism manifested by people from the Commonwealth. Having boasted of our sympathy, we now have an opportunity of legalising that sympathy, so to speak, and making it a right for these people to have this concession.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Renton: If anything, the hon. Member's intervention has emphasised the point I was trying to make. If we make exemption a matter of right, and a somewhat legalistic matter, we shall have to devise methods of formal proof, and so on, as well as overcoming the various difficulties of definition and interpretation that I have mentioned. We felt that it would be as sympathetic and, in the sense I have explained, more sympathetic to allow these applications to be dealt with by immigration officers on the spot. I do not believe that there will be difficulty or injustice in dealing with the matter that way.

Sir B. Janner: The hon. and learned Gentleman is usually logical and impressive, but I cannot understand his logic on this occasion. Surely he is not suggesting that if there is a right of this kind, a person who does not have documentary evidence to establish the claim is to be prevented from coming here.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member can have no idea of the complexities of definition and of proof which would be required if we formalised this too much. I have had to consider this matter very carefully and I assure the Committee that the difficulties of definition and of the arrangements which would have to be made have proved very complex and would be far more embarrassing than leaving the matter generously open.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I do not mean to intervene for more than a few seconds between the two establishments. The situation to which the new Clause draws attention is one of the unfortunate effects of having departed from the general principle of

free entry into the United Kingdom of Commonwealth citizens.
Having said that, I appreciate the spirit of what my hon. and learned Friend has said and the assurances which he has given. I merely want to ask him whether he can extend the assurance he has given about the admission of Commonwealth citizens who have served in the two world wars to those who have served in any of the other wars. There may not be many such cases of other wars in which Commonwealth citizens have been engaged against the Sovereign's enemies, but there may be Commonwealth citizens who, for example, were engaged in the Anglo-Boer war, but were not subsequently engaged in either of the two world wars.

Mr. Fletcher: I feel just this amount of sympathy with the Minister of State. He was obviously reading a prepared reply to the Motion. He was turning it down before he had heard a series of passionate speeches in its support. It is for this reason that I think he is probably deserving of some sympathy, but the Home Secretary, who is able to take positive decisions, has listened to the debate, and I make this appeal to him. He has heard speech after speech from this side of the Committee, and one from the opposite side, a fairly sympathetic speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth). Does he not realise that there must be some limit to the depths of degradation and shame to which this country will be drawn by the Bill?
Here is a perfectly simple, straightforward new Clause proposing not that ex-Service men who have served in any Commonwealth Army should be given any new rights, but merely that they should retain their existing ones. Nothing more than that. Any of them could have come here during the last sixteen years and would have been welcome.

Sir J. Smyth: I do not think that it is nearly as simple as the hon. Gentleman is trying to make out. For instance, the new Clause caters for the sisters of people who have been killed in war. If someone says, "I am the sister of so-and-so, who was killed three years ago", how is anyone to know whether that is correct? I have the greatest admiration for the Commonwealth


soldiers who served in both world wars, but I think that the provisions of this Clause would be very difficult to carry out.

Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He has clarified his position, and it is right that we should deal with each category of case. There is the ex-Service man who has been wounded, and there is his relative. Let us, first, consider the ex-Service man. Surely he should have an unchallenged right to come here whenever he likes; and this should apply whether he is whole, or maimed, or incapacitated in any way. I hope that the Home Secretary will agree with this.
I cannot think that we are dealing with a large class of persons. I do not know whether the Government have made any attempt to ascertain even the possible number to which this new Clause could apply, but it must be very limited. If, as has been said, the new Clause will lead to a flood of immigrants, they could have come here already, and would have had the right to come. Why should we deprive those who fought in a Commonwealth Army for this country of the right which they have had to come here? It is this kind of refusal by the Government to accept a new Clause such as this which exposes the hollowness of their case for this Bill.
If anyone wants to know why the Bill is being supported in the country, he should read the speech which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) in his constituency. Opinion is being stirred up in the country by back benchers opposite. Not all of them, of course, but this is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said:
We have been attracting many, many thousands of people from other parts of the world who look upon England as an El Dorado.
Now, none of us would mind if all these people were decent people.
The people covered by the new Clause are decent people.
But many are diseased, others are criminals, and others have come here for the specific intention of working for a while so that they can then enjoy the benefits of unemployment pay.
He went on to say:
England has always been the place for criminals fleeing from the law in other countries. Many of the people who come in from

Pakistan and other countries are pimps—men who run brothels and organised vice.
Those are the reasons being given by the Minister's supporters for the Bill. I do not say that they are the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman, but he says that the Bill is necessary and that the Government intend to carry it out in a humane, liberal, generous and benevolent way. To 'test his sincerity we tabled Amendment after Amendment which would enable him to do what he professes he wants to do. The new Clause suggests a class of person who should be entitled to come in.
All our Amendments have been rejected. On what grounds have they been rejected? On a lot of pettifogging bureaucratic grounds, that it will be difficult to distinguish between one person and another, and so on. But why attempt to make a distinction? The Minister of State said that someone may have fought in a Commonwealth Army for one day, and asked whether we should exclude him. What a pettifogging argument. If there is any doubt about the bona fides or eligibility of anybody who has fought for any length of time in any Commonwealth Army, give him the benefit of the doubt. Why argue about it?
The Home Secretary says that in addition to those who will come in as of right under Clause 2—students, those who have vouchers to do a job, and those who can support themselves—large numbers will be admitted under a quota. The ex-Service men and their dependants should have preferential rights under the quota, and if a mistake is made and somebody who does not come within the precise terms of some provision is admitted, what does it matter? Why not give him the benefit of the doubt? Surely that can be done if the Home Secretary is sincere in saying that he wants to carry out the provisions of the Bill in a humane and Liberal way. The hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments were inconsistent with that professed sincerity.

Sir J. Lucas: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows this, but after the last war the Civil Defence people who stayed in Malaya were to be given only three months pay, whereas those who were put into khaki received full


pay. I had four interviews with Lord Attlee and eventually got these Civil Defence people an ex-gratia payment of up to £1,500, less 10 per cent. The point was that the money could not be paid to any Civil Defence worker who was Malayan or Chinese, because, although thousands of people might have said who he was, there was no proof. It was, therefore, an ex-gratia payment for the white planters who had not been allowed to leave the island, because there were no papers or anything to prove that the Malayans and others had served.

Mr. Renton: I have listened with great attention to the strong words used by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). I think that he has entirely missed the point of my speech.

Mr. Fletcher: That is a matter for the Committee to judge. I appreciate what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. I have no doubt that it is true, and I have no doubt that some hon. Gentlemen opposite have genuine and sincere feelings about the Bill. This has been evident in some of their speeches, but I ask the Home Secretary to realise that in this Clause there is a serious point of principle which goes to the root of the good name of this country.
I ask him again whether he does not think that we have reached the limit of degradation and shame to which this Bill will bring us in the eyes not only of our own people but of the Commonwealth? If there is any doubt about the eligibility of some of these people to come here, give them the benefit of the doubt. We were told that the object of the Bill was only to control numbers. The argument now being put forward shows that the desire is to reject as many as possible. Is this the Government's intention?
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would give certain assurances. I hope that the Home Secretary will concede our claim and accept the new Clause. Failing that, I should like two more assurances. Will specific directions be given in the instructions to immigration officers—which we are told will be published on Friday—that sympathetic treatment must be given to the class of person referred to in the new Clause? Will that be made expressly clear?

Secondly, may we have an assurance that no wounded ex-soldier who has served in any Commonwealth Army will be refused admission to this country on medical grounds? If we get those two assurances, they will go some way towards redressing the harm which the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech has done.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. D. Foot: I intervene for only one moment, the more so as I have been reminded that I have not been present throughout the discussion.
It seemed to me that, in his reply, the hon. and learned Gentleman really put his finger on one of the principal weaknesses in the Bill. He was dealing with what everyone agrees is an extremely deserving class of person. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee feel that way and we all desire to help these people if we can. But the hon. and learned Gentleman could only say that instructions would be given to the immigration officers to deal sympathetically with this class of case.
The point I make is that there is no kind of safeguard in the Bill as to how these instructions are to be carried out. The Government have turned down any suggestion of appeal, or review of a decision of the immigration officers. The matter is left entirely in the discretion of the officer himself. He does not need to give any reason; he does not need even to discuss the matter with the immigrant concerned; the decision is his and for whatever reason he gives.
Whatever instructions may be given, there are bound to be very great discrepancies in practice between one immigration officer and another. We may well find that one immigration officer would give very great weight to the sort of considerations which are contemplated in the Clause and be disposed to admit any immigrant who had served in the Armed Forces during the war or a relative of any such immigrant. We may well find that another immigration officer will give less weight to these considerations. There are bound to be great discrepancies in practice between one offices and another and it may well be between one port and another. A great deal may depend on the part at which an immigrant presents himself. That is the fundamental weakness of


the Bill as drafted. Although the Government may give all kinds of instructions, we shall never know how these apply and the way in which, or the extent to which, the instructions are carried out.

Mr. Thorpe: I hope that the logic of the argument which the Minister used in rejecting the new Clause will not commend itself to the Committee. His arguments really are incredible. He began by considering the Clause in detail. There may well be a case for saying that it would be preferable to drop the dependants, sisters, and so forth, but he, as a lawyer, will know that whenever one has a weak case one always starts by attacking one's opponent's pleadings.
What we are interested in is not whether the Government think that the Clause is perfectly drafted, but whether they agree with the principle that those who served in the Commonwealth Forces should have preferential rights in coming into this country. I am sure that he would not wish to press that as an argument for rejecting the Clause.
Another of the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments was that there would be discrimination between those who volunteered and those who served in the Army as a result of being conscripted. I cannot feel that was a powerful argument which would cause the Committee to feel that the Clause should be rejected on that ground. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman said, "It is difficult to get proof. How can we know whether or not a man served in a Commonwealth Army?" I ask the Government whether they are seriously suggesting to the Committee that it is beyond the wit of a Commonwealth Government to issue any form of certificate to show that one of their citizens served in the Armed Forces during the war. Is that really what they are saying, because that is what this argument comes to?
Even the French, who are not noticeably adroit in dealing with some of their administrative problems, have issued to every person who served during the war a certificate entitling that person to certain preferential treatment in trains, buses, and so forth. What the hon. and learned Gentleman is really

saying is that it would be quite impossible for the Canadian Government, or the Indian Government, to issue to those coming to this country a certificate to the effect that for a certain period of time they served in the Armed Forces. That is really what he is saying and that is really the reason why he is asking the Committee to reject the Clause. That is a specious and fantastic allegation which shows little confidence in the administration of fellow members of the Commonwealth.
The Minister used another argument. He said that if formal proof had to be given this might make it more embarrassing. It might well be that the immigrant would have to go into much more detail. If a form of certificate were issued by Commonwealth Governments, which they all recognised and accepted, it seems to me that on presentation of such a certificate, entry would be merely a formality. Quite the reverse would obtain from the procedure which the hon. and learned Gentleman envisages.
I therefore beg the Government not to base their argument on the theory that there is a difference between conscripts and volunteers. Possibly the Clause could have been better drafted. But the hon. and learned Gentleman should come out fairly and squarely and say that the Government accept the principle of preferential entry for those who have been in the Armed Forces and that when this wretched Bill comes back for Report and Third Reading they will move an Amendment to that effect.

Mr. C. Royle: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Just before you occupied the Chair I raised with your predecessor in the Chair the question whether he could accept a manuscript Amendment to the new Clause. I had the impression that he was considering the matter while the debate was going on. I wonder whether a decision has yet been reached.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): The Chairman has spoken to me about that, and he has refused to accept a manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Renton: This discussion has proceeded on a broad basis and I shall certainly not hold it against the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) that the Clause does not refer to the First World War.

Mr. Lipton: I was hoping that we would have some further indication of the Government's view on the Clause before the debate ends. I am sorry that despite some of the arguments adduced in favour of the Clause the Government still seem to be adamant. The Home Secretary has, apparently, not seen fit to take part in the discussion or announce any progress beyond the completely negative attitude that has been displayed by his hon. and learned Friend, who attempted to give the Government's point of view on the Clause.
I do not think that we have ever heard such a tissue of weak and unrelated arguments against a Clause as those produced by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Here is a straightforward and simple issue. He says, in reply to our demand, "We shall consider it with sympathy." My attitude is: to hell with sympathy; we want a definite recognition of an elementary principle of justice that if a man is considered good enough to fight for a country he should be allowed to come into that country. This is the short point that the Clause seeks to establish.
I am quite willing to make whatever concession the Government may demand in respect of the relatives, whose relationship may be difficult to establish, but I must insist upon an assurance being given that a man who has served in the Armed Forces of the Crown in defence of this country—any Commonwealth citizen, white or coloured—shall not be subjected to whatever restrictions it may be considered desirable to impose in the case of other categories of Commonwealth citizen.
Unless the Government are prepared to say that the Bill shall not apply to ex-Service men, whether they have survived whole or in part, I shall ask all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and anyone on the other side of the Committee who is prepared to translate into practice the fine-sounding words that so many of them have used from time to time on behalf of men in the Services, to vote for the Clause. I hope that

every hon. Member to whom I make this last appeal will express his disgust with the Government's negative attitude to the Clause.

Mr. Fletcher: I take it that the Home Secretary's studied silence is a measure of his acute embarrassment. If he leaves the debate unanswered, I hope that he will not continue to tell us that the provisions of the Bill will be administered in a humane and liberal manner.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In response to the attractive invitation of the hon. Member I will only say that I have listened purposely to every minute of the debate, which, naturally, arouses great feelings of sentiment. I have nothing to add to what my hon. and learned Friend has said. He has undertaken to review the matter in the light of the instructions that we may give immigration officers. I am also quite ready to look into the question of wounds and medical fitness. That is a point of substance.
The other points which have been raised are extremely difficult ones. There is great difficulty in making legal distinction. One hon. Member has agreed that it is extremely difficult to find a way to include dependants, because immigration officers will not be able to act in this matter. If the hon. Member wishes to take the matter to a Division he must do so. I can do no more than say that we will consider very carefully all that has been said.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can consideration be given to extending the administrative leniency which is to be given to ex-Service men from those who have served in the two world wars to those who have served in any Commonwealth war?

Mr. Butler: I would have to give consideration to that point. It is typical of the many difficult points that arise on the Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 183, Noes, 223.

Division No. 85.]
AYES
[7.13 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Baird, John
Blackburn, F.


Alnsley, William
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Blyton, William


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Beaney, Alan
Boardman, H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)


Awbery, Stan
Benson, Sir George
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)




Bowles, Frank
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hoy, James H.
Probert, Arthur


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Proctor W. T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, Harry


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hunter, A. E.
Rhodes, H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Callaghan, James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Ross, William


Cattle, Mrs. Barbara
Janner, Sir Barnett
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Chapman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Cliffs, Michael
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Short, Edward


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cronin, John
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Deer, George
Kenyon, Clifford
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Delargy, Hugh
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Snow, Julian


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Sorensen, R. W.


Diamond, John
Ledger, Ron
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Dodds, Norman
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Spriggs, Leslie


Donnelly, Desmond
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Steele, Thomas


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Edelman, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles
Stonehouse, John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stones, William


Evans, Albert
MacColl, James
Symonds, J. B.


Fitch, Alan
McInnes, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fletcher, Eric
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mackle, John (Enfield, East)
Thomas, lot-worth (Rhondda, w.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mahon, Simon
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Manuel, A. C.
Timmons, John


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mapp, Charles
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marsh, Richard
Wade, Donald


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Crmrthn)
Mason, Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Ginsburg, David
Mayhew, Christopher
Warbey, William


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mendelson, J. J.
Watkins, Tudor


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David



Milne, Edward



Grey, Charles
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Monslow, Walter
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Morris, John
Whitlock, William


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moyle, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Neal, Harold
Willey, Frederick


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hnnan, William
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oram, A. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, Thomas
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)
Padley, W. E.
Wilton, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Parker, John
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paton, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pavitt, Laurence
Woof, Robert


Hilton, A. V.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Holman, Percy
Peart, Frederick



Holt, Arthur
Pentland, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Houghton, Douglas
Popplewell, Ernest
Mr. Redbead and Mr. Ifor Davies.


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Prentice, R. E.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Buck, Antony
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver


Aitken, W. T.
Bullard, Denys
Curran, Charles


Arbuthnot, John
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Currie, G. B. H.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Atkins, Humphrey
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Dance, James


Barlow, Sir John
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Deedes, W. F.


Barter, John
Cary, Sir Robert
de Ferranti, Basil


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Channon, H. P. G.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Chataway, Christopher
Doughty, Charles


Berkeley, Humphry
Chichester-Clark, R.
Drayson, G. B.


Biffen, John
Clark, William (Nottingham, s.)
Duncan, Sir James


Biggs-Davison, John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Eden, John


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cleaver, Leonard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Bishop, F. P.
Cole, Norman
Errington, Sir Eric


Black, Sir Cyril
Collard, Richard
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Bossom, Clive
Cooke, Robert
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Cooper, A. E.
Fair, John


Box, Donald
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Finlay, Graeme


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Corfield, F. V.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Boyle, Sir Edward
Costain, A. P.
Forrest, George


Brewis, John
Coulson, Michael
Freeth, Denzil


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Brooman-White, R.
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Gammans, Lady


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Critchley, Julian
George, J. C. (Pollok)







Gibson-Watt, David
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Renton, David


Gilmour, Sir John
Litchfield, Capt. John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Ridsdale, Julian


Gough, Frederick
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Roots, William


Gower, Raymond
Loveys, Walter H.
Russell, Ronald


Grant, Bt. Hon. William
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gram-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Seymour, Leslie


Green, Alan
McAdden, Stephen
Sharples, Richard


Gurden, Harold
McLaren, Martin
Shaw, M.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Shepherd, William


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Harrison, Brian (Maiden)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, w.)
Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Smithers, Peter


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hastings, Stephen
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Hay, John
Maginnis, John E.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hendry, Forbes
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stodart, J. A.


Hiley, Joseph
Marlowe, Anthony
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Marten, Neil
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Hocking, Philip N.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Holland, Philip
Mills, Stratton
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Hollingworth, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Hopkins, Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Temple, John M.


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Morgan, William
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Morrison, John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Nabarro, Gerald
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Tiley, Arthur (Bradord, W.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Turner, Colin


James, David
Page, Graham (Crosby)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Vane, W. M. F.


Jennings, J. C.
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Partridge, E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pearson, Frank (Ciltheroe)
Walder, David



Peel, John



Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Percival, Ian
Walker, Peter


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Ward, Dame Irene


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Pitman, Sir James
Webster, David


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pitt, Miss Edith
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kitson, Timothy
Pott, Percivall
Whitelaw, William


Lagden, Godfrey
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Leather, E. H. C.
Prior, J. M. L.
Wise, A. R.


Leavey, J. A.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Woodhouse, C. M.


Leburn, Gilmour
Pym, Francis
Woodnutt, Mark


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Worsley, Marcus


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rawlinson, Peter



Lilley, F. J. P.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Lindsay, Sir Martin
Rees, Hugh
Mr. Gordon Campbell and




Mr. Michael Hamilton.

New Clause.—(COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION ADVISORY COUNCIL.)

(1) There shall be constituted a Council, to be called the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council, to give advice and assistance to the Home Secretary in connection with his duties under this Act and to give advice and assistance to other Ministers in connection with any duties which they may have in relation to the welfare and well-being of Commonwealth immigrants into this country.

(2) The Home Secretary may from time to time refer to the said Council for consideration and advice such questions relating to the operation of this Act as he thinks fit (including questions as to the advisability of amending this Act).

(3) The Home Secretary and the other Ministers shall furnish the Council with such information as they may reasonably require for the proper discharge of their functions under this Act.

(4) The Council shall consist of not less than fifteen and not more than twenty members who shall be appointed by the Home Secretary.

(5) The members of the Council shall include—

(a) five persons recommended by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations after consultation with the other Governments of the Commonwealth.
(b) three persons recommended by the Minister of Housing and Local Government with special experience of the problems of settlement of immigrants in this country.

(6) Members of Parliament shall be eligible for appointment to the Council.

(7) There shall be a chairman appointed by the Home Secretary.

(8) Members of the Council appointed under subsections (5) and (6) of this section shall not be eligible to be Chairman.

(9) The terms of appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Council shall be such as the Home Secretary may determine.

(10) The Home Secretary shall appoint a Secretary to the Council, and may appoint such other officers and such servants to the Council, and there shall be paid to them such salaries and allowances as the Minister may with the consent of the Treasury determine.

(11) The Home Secretary may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, pay to the Chairman and Members of the Council and to persons attending meetings at the request of the Council, such allowances as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine in respect of travelling and subsistence expenses and in respect of other expenses (if any) necessarily incurred by them for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their duties as members of the Council.

(12) The Council shall make an annual report to the Home Secretary on their proceedings and the Home Secretary shall lay that report before Parliament with such comments (if any) as he thinks fit.—[Mr. Deedes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I hope that this proposal will find a wider measure of agreement than have some other parts of the Bill. What is perhaps more important, I hope that it may appear to the Committee to be a constructive addition to what inevitably has had to be a rather restricted Measure.
This Clause denies nobody anything. It offers a service which could be most valuable to the immigrants and to this country. I wish to stress the positive intentions which we have here in mind, and I feel sure that the Home Secretary will agree with them. Advisory councils or committees like this are used to meet all kinds of political difficulties, but that is not the idea here. I believe that this body, properly used, could materially assist in a most difficult job, and I will briefly tell the Committee why.
From the time when a Measure such as this became probable, some of us had hoped that the occasion would be used to improve the somewhat haphazard arrangements governing the entry of people from the Commonwealth. There is a danger which arises from free entry, in that it implies that no problem exists at all, and some people are persuaded from taking sensible administrative steps in certain respects. The reception of immigrants up to now has been casual almost to a degree and has been left a great deal to voluntary bodies, which have been doing good work. I am sometimes surprised, not at the difficulties which have been engendered, but by the fact that some difficulties have not been greater.
A council on the lines suggested acknowledges that difficulties exist. It would become the focal point for those willing and able—there are many admirable voluntary bodies which are most anxious and are able to do so—to lend a hand not merely to those who are still to come to this country but to those who are already here. It may be that the Ministries feel that between them they cover the front and that such a council would constitute a sort of fifth wheel. I cannot agree.
The Ministry of Labour would have its problems over the voucher system. The Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and, of course, the Home Office, would all have problems in their own spheres. There is no intention here to interfere with any Ministerial functions. But it would be foolish to pretend that there is not a vast amount of welfare information, guidance, advice and care which falls between all those Departments and, as the Bill now stands, is not being met.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that some time ago, before this new Clause was put down, the Home Office was being urged by the National Council of Social Service to establish a committee on these lines; that is, a body to bring the statutory Departments and voluntary organisations concerned with this work in different parts of the county into closer touch with each other. Some proposals on these lines were put forward by the National Council of Social Service group for the well-being of coloured workers, and the chairman, Sir John Wrigley, is not without experience of public administration. Indeed, a strong case was made out.
I do not envisage that this council would sit in London simply receiving information and dispensing advice. I hope that a considerable part of its work would be to go to places where immigrants live in larger numbers; study the problems at first-hand and receive a great deal of evidence which voluntary bodies could bring and present in a proper form. As I see it, the Home Secretary ought to be able to refer to this council all the specific problems which might lie a little outside the range of his Department. He then would, or should, get answers not related to the


policies of a particular Ministry but something nearer to a neutral answer. I think that that neutral role is important. There is value in having a body to act as referee, as a neutral umpire, in many of the social problems which will arise.
I warn my right hon. Friend—I am sure that he is aware of it—that between now and the end of 1963 he will receive a great volume of information and counsel, much of it conflicting, about how this Measure is working out. Some of that advice will be excellent, some of it will be tittle-tattle. The council would help to sort the one from the other, with no sort of vested interest or representation from any particular Department to influence such advice.
It is possible that some will declare that the very proposal to establish such a council admits or emphasises the colour problem, and I wish to touch on that, because it does. Were we dealing simply with Canadians, New Zealanders or White Rhodesians, such a council as this would at least be less necessary. I hope that no one will misinterpret that or make heavy weather of it. Had we admitted openly a little earlier that here there were social problems which ought to be and were to be met, it is conceivable that this Bill, at least in its present form, would have been less necessary. No one would level an accusation of colour prejudice against the British Council, which has been doing admirable work quietly for a long time on behalf of coloured students.
The council might have valuable functions in the review of this Measure and its working which will have to take place in eighteen months' time. I am more concerned with the functions of this body than with its composition. I am quite willing to admit that we have probably got this wrong and will willingly accept any changes which might be offered, but the functions seem important.
The Committee must surely recognise by now that as it stands the Bill will not solve the main problem on our hands. It may reduce the level of the flood of immigrants which we have experienced this last year to more manageable dimensions. The fact remains, however, that we already have a very large

number of immigrants and in all probability the numbers will increase. The fundamental problem is not one of restriction at the ports, but of assimilation in our society.
7.30 p.m.
This Bill as it stands will not go a long way towards meeting that problem; it is not designed to do so. We are at grips here with a vast social and historical problem which elsewhere and at other times has had enormous repercussions. Those who for any reason blink at that fact are no real friends of the coloured people. Such a council would make only a tiny contribution to an immense problem, but I think it might be a practical and positive one not only for our own people but for immigrants themselves. I hope that the Committee may be persuaded to see it in that way.

Mr. James MacColl: I wish very warmly to support what the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has said. Both in the specific proposal for having an advisory council of some sort—I do not want to spend a lot of time arguing details of its composition—and also to one coming to this problem with a different point of view and very strongly opposed to the Bill root and branch, this emphasises an important question.
The hon. Member was absolutely right in saying that unless we are to deport all immigrants we shall still have a difficult problem of assimilation. That problem is not substantially a problem of fact, or a problem of what are the acute physical difficulties, acute as they are. The problem is essentially and primarily a psychological one of getting people to realise the importance of living together. What is required far more than restrictions and regulations is the Government's identifying themselves more positively with the job of integrating communities.
The hon. Member said that he thought one of the difficulties was that this might be criticised as being to some extent the acceptance of colour difference. I used to feel that very strongly. I have always resisted the tendency, which exists both among immigrants and natives, to drop too easily into the assumption that we are a society based on recognition of racial differences. It


suggests that we ought to have a coloured representative in the citizens' advice bureau, a coloured welfare worker in a housing department, and so forth. That is wrong. We have to recognise that in this country we do not work on a basis of colour, but on the free rights of citizens to use services.
Nevertheless, to bring home to people the importance of making an effort to understand each other it is necessary to have some kind of initiative from the Government. The hon. Member mentioned Sir John Wrigley's committee. I happen to be in a humble way, as it were, the "Sir John Wrigley" of London. I am chairman of the equivalent body, the London branch of the Council, dealing with problems of London. In going round the different areas and the Metropolitan boroughs trying to persuade people to have local community organisations and to look at these problems, we are again and again told that this is a job in which the Government ought to give a lead. We find that many local authorities are timid. Some have done great work in this field, but many are timid and are looking for a lead from the Government.
I do not want in any way to underestimate what has been done by the Government, because we have worked in closest co-operation with officials of different Government Departments concerned with this problem. I could not pay too high a tribute to their keenness and the devotion to work which they have shown, but they do this mainly because they have a deep private and personal interest in the problem. What is required is for the Government to make it clear that they attach importance to the pooling of information about community problems and the acceptance locally of responsibility for those problems.
There is a particular aspect I wish to mention. Earlier, we were talking about particular problems of students and the need for giving some advice and direction to people who are to administer this Measure about the part which education can play in training those from the Commonwealth. This is a field in which it seems that the Home Office will be groping—if I may be allowed to say so—rather blindly, in spite of the Secretary of State knowing a bit about education.

It will be very difficult for them to see the picture of what kind of load of students can be taken in this country and what particular field needs students in the Commonwealth. We have to marry vacancies in this country with the demand for certain types of education and training in the Commonwealth.
These are difficult problems which require the pooling of a great many different views. The views of people in the Commonwealth, the views of educationists here and the views of people who have to look at social problems created by bringing overseas students to this country all constitute a task requiring the focusing of very different viewpoints. That is work which an advisory council of this kind ought to do.
I would welcome something on these lines, not that it would perform miracles, but because it would be a centre for pooling information. As the hon. Member said, it would be rather like the Central Housing Advisory Committee, which focuses the best opinion on problems connected with housing management. So, in the case of community living, this council could focus attention, pool it and spread it abroad. I think that that would be extremely valuable.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am sure that we are all obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for the manner in which they have proposed and supported this new Clause. I have given considerable thought to it since it appeared on the Notice Paper and I have certain definite things to say about it.
My attitude to the Clause has been adjusted slightly during the course of our discussions, especially in relation to the idea of a statutory council, because in certain respects the relationship of the Secretary of State to Parliament has been improved during the passage of the Bill through Committee. For example, the Bill is now to be reviewed at the end of next year after a comparatively short time in operation. Then it will be reviewable yearly in respect of Part I. That will bring the Secretary of State and other Ministers to Parliament more than was the case before.
We have also written into the Bill a good many of the duties of the Secretary of State, notably in respect of residence, wives, children and students. That has improved the Bill in this respect. It would enable Parliament more easily to assess the way in which the Secretary of State carries out his duties. All this will be made clearer when, as I announced earlier this afternoon, we publish the instructions to the immigration officers on Friday of this week. Hon. Members can then read and study them.
In the circumstances, the need for what I will describe as a statutory council seems to me to be less than when the Clause was originally put on the Notice Paper. There is also a basic difficulty, which is that when questions of policy arise in relation to the Bill they must be decided by the Government of the day. I am convinced that whatever body of right hon. or hon. Members formed the Government, they would take the same line and wish to be answerable to Parliament for questions on which they were responsible.
It seems to me that, when my hon. Friend said that he did not wish the council he proposed to interfere with the functions of Ministers and referred rather more to welfare, he was really taking the same point as I am now taking. It would be wrong for an outside body to come to conclusions on broad issues such as I have mentioned—issues requiring the exercise of political judgment. It would be up to the Government to reach conclusions and then put them before the House.
Further, we do not think that it is necessary for a council like this to be concerned with individual cases. Decisions on these must be taken by Ministers. They must be taken on the responsibility of the Minister concerned, who will be answerable for them to Parliament.
But I should now like to go on to say, in answer to the two hon. Members who have so far intervened in the debate, that there may be particular problems in the operation of the Bill on which the Government would value advice from time to time. I do not have in mind broad issues of policy or individual cases, but rather such questions relating to the welfare of immigrants

and, as my hon. Friend said, their assimilation into the community. For these and more limited purposes I do not think that we need what I will describe as a statutory body, with all the formality which that would involve.
I suggest a plan on the following lines. First, I think that we can achieve what we really want by a small body of advisers being attached to the Secretary of State and appointed by him. Secondly, I contemplate that matters should be referred to this body by the Secretary of State ad referendum. I have in mind—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Widnes; this shows that we are moving on the same lines—my Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, which has examined the many difficult matters referred to it.
I should like to say here that my hon. and learned Friend the new Solicitor-General, who had put his name to the Clause before his appointment, has been a most useful member of my Advisory Council and I should like to say how much we shall miss his services on the Council. I have every reason to believe that he is in sympathy with what I am now saying that something in the nature of an advisory council would meet the main objectives of the Clause.
The third feature of the proposal I am making is that, for the reasons I have explained, this body should concern itself largely with questions of welfare. My hon. Friend said that such a body should go places and see for itself. That may be a very valuable feature of its activity. I believe that the sponsors of the Clause are animated by their desire to see immigrants assimilated properly into our society.
I should like to acknowledge here the excellent work done for the welfare of immigrants, not only under our local authorities, but by organisations such as that of which the hon. Member for Widnes is chairman, the London Council of Social Services, and also the Standing Conference of Councils of Social Services. I especially recommend the work they do. I think, also, of the work done by the High Commissioners' offices, the work we attempt to do in Government offices, and the work done by voluntary societies.
But what has impressed me, not only when I was Minister of Education but


also when I was Minister of Labour and now more particularly at the Home Office, is that there is not a great deal of correlation or co-ordination between all the worthy bodies which work in this field. I cannot but feel that it would be helpful to have some small advisory body to whom the Secretary of State could turn when issues arise which cause him or the public concern.
7.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Widnes mentioned students. The new Clause on students has not been called, but I dare say there will be an opportunity of discussing students more on Report. I would not exclude referring questions concerning the welfare of students to this body, although it would have to be careful not to cross the wires with the British Council, the Department of Technical Co-operation, which has worked for students in a very forward way since it has been appointed, and other agents at present working for the good welfare of students.
I may be asked what is the body I have in mind and what its nature would be. First, it would be small. It would not consist of representative interests or countries, but would be independent and impartial. It would not deal with individual cases. It would deal with them only in so far as they came into the field of welfare. However, the body would be available for the Secretary of State to refer matters to, and, in particular, questions affecting the welfare of immigrants in the consideration of which Her Majesty's Government feel that impartial help would be of value.
If my hon. Friends feel that something on these lines would be helpful, I would proceed to work something out on these lines. I think that that is the most efficient way to deal with this matter—in an informal, but yet practical, way. If we did this, it might give confidence to many who feel anxious about the operation of the Bill. It is because the Clause has been put forward in that spirit that I would endeavour to respond in as constructive a way as possible.

Mr. Lipton: Before the Home Secretary concludes, will he clarify one point? He referred to the London Conference of Social Services, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr.

MacColl) is associated. He referred also to the High Commission for the West Indies in London, where, as he knows, there is a very excellent migrant services division which has been doing very good work for a number of years and which is to be expanded for the purpose of co-operating with the Government in the working out of the Bill. Can the Home Secretary tell us to what extent, if at all, these two bodies and any other appropriate bodies will be brought into the Advisory Council to which he has just referred, and which he asks us to accept in place of the body proposed in the Clause?

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would not suggest that this body should take over the work of these agencies. We must be sure that the main work is devolved, because personal attention to the needs of immigrants will be assured only if this work is devolved and done humanely by the bodies which understand it. All I think the advisory council could do would be to bring certain matters to the attention of the Secretary of State and, if he had matters which concerned him, he would refer it to this body, which would put itself in touch with the other agencies.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Before the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) rises to withdraw the Clause, as I believe he is about to do, may I say, on behalf of some of my hon. Friends, that we are very glad that the Home Secretary has seen his way to meet the suggestion underlying the Clause, at any rate partially. There is no doubt that some sort of Advisory Council would be helpful to whoever fills the office the right hon. Gentleman now occupies.
On reading the Clause, I felt that it did not cover same of the points which I should like it to cover. For example, there is a reference to the three persons to be recommended for appointment to the council by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I should have thought that the Minister of Labour would have had something to say and should have been included and have had the right to appoint members to the Advisory Council, if it had been set up and the Home Secretary had accepted the Clause.
Therefore, perhaps the Clause as it stands is not entirely satisfactory.


Nevertheless, something ought to be done and I am delighted that the Home Secretary has met the hon. Member for Ashford and his hon. Friends at any rate half-way. When the constitution of the Advisory Council which the Home Secretary has promised us is drawn up. will he be willing to make it something a little wider than merely to deal with welfare?
There are, occasionally—and undoubtedly there will be in the future—other questions on which such an Advisory Council could usefully proffer advice, and it would be a pity were it to be confined solely to welfare. That would not give the Home Secretary of the day very much elbow room. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow the constitution of any body which is set up to be wide enough to include advice on other matters.

Mr. Deedes: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his response to this proposal, and in view of the nature of his reply I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(APPLICATION TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.)

This Act shall not apply to the admission or re-admission of members of either House of Parliament of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. B. Harrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I must, first, declare my interest. I am a Commonwealth citizen and, although I am a British subject, I travel on an Australian passport. I am not alone in that. A number of hon. Members travel on Canadian passports, and at least one travels on a New Zealand one. There is even a wider range in another place, where there is an Australian, a Rhodesian and an Indian—all, presumably, travelling on their own country's passport but able to sit as Members in the United Kingdom Parliament. It is to look after their privileges that I have tabled this new Clause.
Some will say, "You are fully entitled as a resident of the country to

have an ordinary British passport", but a number of us, in the same way as do Welshmen and Scotsmen, take a certain pride in being able to remain Australians, Rhodesians, Indians, or whatever it may be.
I have an additional reason for liking to retain my Australian passport—I find it such tremendous fun when travelling across America. When one arrives in North America the immigration officials say, "Oh, yes, Mr. Harrison, you are, going off to Canberra?" I reply, "No, I am going to Australia, but I am returning to Westminster". They say, "But you are travelling on an Australian passport". I answer, "Yes, but I am a Member of the United Kingdom Houses of Parliament". By that time they are so confused that they just cannot work out how somebody can be at once an Australian and a Member of the British House of Commons. They then either get their superior officer to interrogate me, or throw up their hands and give it away as something that only the mad British can understand.
The Committee will recall that each Session we pass a Sessional Order
That the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that during the Session of Parliament the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open…
and that there are no obstructions. A Clause such as this would make it possible to widen that principle to entry or re-entry into this country—

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether he voted for the Second Reading of this Bill? If he did, why does he claim to be exempt from its provisions himself?

Mr. Harrison: There are times when Members of Parliament do have special privileges. I have given the example of the Sessional Order that the House passes at the beginning of each Session—though one has noticed that there have been unfortunate occasions when the Metropolitan Police have not assisted at all Members of Parliament in, possibly, the way they expect.
There have been cases where hon. Members have been recalled to this country to take part in important Divisions. A not benevolent Government


might—although I do not suggest that a Government formed by any parties present in this House of Commons would do so—use this Measure to delay some hon. Member coming in—

Mr. John Diamond: Mr. John Diamond (Gloucester) rose—

Mr. Harrison: The time is so short that the hon. Gentleman must excuse me.
An hon. Member would first have to prove that he could support himself and, on the salary that Members of Parliament get, some hon. Members would say that that would be difficult. I understand that certain representations have been made on that score. Whether or not a noble Lord would be able to prove that he could support himself is a matter that is open to doubt, unless he carried an accountant's certificate. One would have to prove that one was coming to take a job. Presumably, being a Member of Parliament is regarded as a job, but it might be open to dispute. Owing to the shortness of the time available, I cannot take this very much further, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider very carefully whether this new Clause should not be included in the Bill.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Sir Robert, my hon. Friend—

Mr. Diamond: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Is it not within the normal rules that speakers are selected alternately from either side of the Chamber?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): It is, but as the time is so short I thought that it might be for the convenience of the Committee to hear what the Government had to say.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I shall try to take only two minutes and leave two minutes to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). Because of the Amendment in Clause 2, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Harrison) and others like him will be in no danger of having to submit to the controls of this Measure because residents, as they are, are to be admitted freely, even though they carry an Australian or Canadian passport, or whatever passport it may be. Since all Members of Parliament are resident, and

as, presumably, all Members of Parliament pay the taxes of residents, and so on, they get exemption by the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend at an earlier stage.
There are one or two Commonwealth peers who are not residents, but it will be seen from the instructions that are to be published in the White Paper that immigration officers will be instructed to admit without question any Member of either House of Parliament. I therefore think that my hon. Friend's important design, which has been put forward with such fervour, is sufficiently covered by the Amendment to Clause 2, or will be by the instructions. It is not usual to exempt by Statute Members of Parliament from our ordinary law, and I do not think that we need go further than that.

Mr. Diamond: First, everyone will agree, I am sure, that it is most objectionable that Members of Parliament should be denied the opportunity of understanding what their constituents and other people have to undergo. One of the best ways to help us discharge our duty is that we should undergo what every one else has to undergo.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Harrison) has not demonstrated why his blood is different from that of other members of the Commonwealth, in the ordinary sense, and why, when he goes to Pakistan, he is incapable of contracting smallpox or anything else as is alleged of others. Further, will he, as a member of the Conservative Party, be able to demonstrate to the immigration officer that she is not suffering from mental disorder?

Mr. B. Harrison: In view of the nature of the reply I have received, Sir Robert, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put and negatived.

First Schedule.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION.)

8.0 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 15, line 14, after "information", to insert "in his possession".
We come now to what is really an extremely unpleasant part of the Bill. We have been having a pleasant and congenial discussion on the subjects of unversity education in Britain for Commonwealth students and the care and welfare of immigrants, and so on. But now we come right down into the sordid atmosphere of what I think, is in danger of becoming a police State. It is the atmosphere of finding oneself lined up in miserable queues being quizzed by an official before one can come into what one has regarded as being one's own country. All this is happening while the boat train is liable to go at any moment and, amid this atmosphere of rush and tension, one is suddenly asked all sorts of awkward questions to which one does not happen to have the answers.
The first part of the Schedule deals with the obtaining of information from intending immigrants and states that
…it shall be the duty of every such person to furnish to an immigration officer such information as that officer may require for the purpose of his functions under this paragraph.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of State, who is a distinguished lawyer, will no doubt say that it is possible for a person to apply to the divisional court possibly for a prerogative writ to prevent the immigration officer from asking for information on the ground that the officer does not require it for the purpose of his function.
It is not in this atmosphere that these matters are discussed. An immigrant in the position I have described does not discuss whether he might go to the Divisional Court, for the boat train might be waiting to leave and he desperately wants to know whether or not he is to be allowed into the country. Thus, we want to make it absolutely clear that it is not possible for an immigration officer to delay a person by asking for information which that person does not have. Naturally it is reasonable for him to ask for information which the person has, but obviously to seek information which he does not have is not reasonable.
While the Amendment is short it is by no means unimportant. I am asking that the words "in his possession" should be included after the word "information".

Mr. Renton: My advice to the Committee is to accept the Amendment. There can be no harm in making it clear in the Bill that no one should be required to produce information which he does not possess.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Wade: I beg to move in page 15, line 14, after "may", to insert "reasonably".
I hope that this Amendment will meet with the same excellent result as did the previous one. At present, the Schedule reads that
…every such person to furnish to an immigration officer such information as that officer may require…
The addition of "reasonably", as suggested in the Amendment, would make those words read:
…every such person to furnish to an immigration officer such information as that officer may reasonably require…
The purpose of the Amendment is to add the word "reasonably" concerning the information which the immigration officer requires. This word is not unknown in our legislation and it would indicate that the officer should carry out his duties as fairly and reasonably as possible. It would help in the application of the duties required of him as a result of the Bill if the word "reasonably" were inserted.
It is unnecessary for me to pursue this further, because if the word is not inserted one can foresee circumstances where the immigration officer—perhaps being rather tired towards the end of the day—might act somewhat unreasonably. For the protection of immigrants this word should be included.

Mr. S. Silverman: It seems that this is not a purely verbal Amendment, because it is enacted in the Bill that to refuse information which the immigration officer requires is an offence. If the word "reasonably" is not inserted a defendant charged with such an offence would have no defence whatever once it was established that the immigration officer had, in fact, required the information.
If the Amendment is accepted the prosecution will have to prove that the immigration officer was not acting arbitrarily but reasonably. It is, therefore, a substantial and necessary Amendment.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Would this not be covered by the phrase,
…for the purpose of his functions…"?

Mr. Silverman: The question is whether he is reasonable or not reasonable in thinking that it is for those purposes. The point is just the same.

Mr. Renton: My advice to the Committee is also to accept this Amendment. I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has made a point that is worth repeating, for this is not merely a drafting matter.
It is inconceivable that an immigration officer would ask a question which was not relevant to his functions under the Bill, but there could be a dispute as to whether or not a particular question was strictly relevant to those functions. By adding the word "reasonably" we enable the courts to decide the matter more easily. For the reasons advanced by both the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne it is right that we should make the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 15, line 19, after "required", to insert "in writing".
It is satisfactory to know that we are steadily improving this Schedule, although we have not made much improvement to the remainder of the Bill. I hope that the Government will feel disposed also to accept this Amendment.
The scheme of the Schedule is that the immigration officer may presumably examine anyone who comes in and then, if he wishes to, pursue a more detailed or more thorough examination. In this case he must, within 24 hours of the time when the immigrant landed, tell the immigrant that he proposes to submit him to further examination. Various consequences flow if the immigrant does not comply with such a demand.
To avoid any possibility of doubt arising, the object of the Amendment is to ensure that if the immigration officer is not satisfied and does not pass the immigrant at first sight—and wants to detain him for a period of more than 24 hours—he should tell the immigrant

so in writing. Let there be no doubt about it. Let there be a formal notice so that the immigrant knows precisely where he stands, what he must do, where he must go and for what purpose he is to be examined.
It is not good enough to lay down by Act of Parliament that, provided a person is passed within 24 hours, he is free, subject to the conditions imposed, to stay as long as he likes but that someone else told to stand for further examination can be left in doubt about his position. There should be no doubt. He should be given a specific notice in writing telling him that he is supposed to stay behind, why he is supposed to stay behind and where he should go.

Mr. Renton: I am glad to advise the Committee that in our opinion this Amendment should also be accepted.
Clearly, if there is to be any dispute about whether or not someone was detained for further examination, then it is right from the practical point of view and possibly from the point of view of proof later on in the event of the matter coming to court that it should be put in writing. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the suggestion.

Mr. Chapman: I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I feel that the hon. and learned Gentleman might have been more forthcoming and said also that we wish to be sure that any immigrant who is detained at our ports in this way is not left at the end of a bureaucratic string for 24 hours not knowing why he has been detained. One good reason for having this put in writing is that anyone kept waiting will be fully informed, able to understand why it is done and what redress he may have at the end of it.

Mr. Renton: The reason for a person being detained for further examination will in any event have been explained by the immigration officer with his usual courtesy and understanding. Here we are dealing not merely with courtesy and understanding but with a specific power which may be important from the point of view of formal proof. We feel that, if somebody is to be detained in this way, it is right that the matter should be put in writing.

Amendment agreed to.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Wade: I beg to move, in page 15, line 21, to leave out sub-paragraph (3).

The Deputy-Chairman: Together with this Amendment we may discuss the following further Amendments:
In page 15, line 34, to leave out subparagraph (4).
In page 15, line 41, to leave out from "inspector" to the end of line 44.
In page 15, to leave out lines 42 to 44.
A Division will be called only on the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has moved.

Mr. Wade: This is more than a probing Amendment. We are anxious to know the reasons for sub-paragraph (3). We have now made the major decisions on the Bill. We know that there will be control of immigration by Commonwealth citizens, but we are concerned with the procedure and we are anxious to know how it will work.
As I understand it, an immigrant will he called upon to show that he is entitled to enter He will be asked for his passport, for his voucher to show that he has a job, or for such other evidence as is required to satisfy the immigration officer. If the immigrant does not satisfy the immigration officer, presumably he will not be admitted, but I cannot understand why this further examination should take place. Why should he be called upon to declare
whether or not he is carrying or conveying any documents"?
It is not a reference to documents relevant to the question whether the person is an immigrant who should be allowed to enter; the reference is to any document of any kind. Further, it is provided that
the power to examine any such person shall include power to search him and any baggage belonging to him or under his control with a view to ascertaining whether he is carrying or conveying any documents".
This is a very wide power of search. We assume that these immigrants are not criminals. If they are suspected criminals, other factors come into play. They are not persons who, for security reasons, we think should not be allowed to enter.
We are dealing with the ordinary case of a Commonwealth citizen from 'the West Indies or wherever it may be who wishes to come to this country. For some reason or other, he does not satisfy the immigration officer that he has the proper papers. Why, for that reason, should the immigration officer have the right to call upon him to declare what documents of any kind he has in his possession and follow that up by searching all his baggage as if he were someone trying to evade the Customs? We are dealing here not with the evasion of Customs but with immigration. The Minister of State should give an explanation of the very wide powers which seem to be granted here.

Mr. Gower: It seems to me that there is a strong case to answer here. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) has said, the powers provided for seem tremendously wide. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to do without them in their present form or, alternatively will be able to give us a very powerful reason for their retention.
As the hon. Member said, the people to whom these powers will be applied are merely people seeking to come here, presumably, to take employment and reside here. They are not to be compared in any way with other persons who may come from foreign countries. The case seems to me to be very strong and, superficially at any rate, the wording is far too wide for the purpose for which I assume it to be designed.

Mr. S. Silverman: This is not merely a wide power, though I agree that it is that. Even if it were a narrow power, it would still be thoroughly objectionable. It is impossible to understand what documents the immigration officer would be looking for. Presumably, if a would-be immigrant has a passport, he will be glad enough to produce that himself. The same applies to a visa or a labour voucher. This power, presumably, will be used by the immigration officer only if he suspects that the immigrant has other documents, and if he has begun with that suspicion it is inconceivable that he would be content to accept a denial. We may, therefore, take it for granted that in every case, or in almost every case, where this power is used it will be followed by a search.
I am sure that the Minister of State will agree that of all the humiliating things to which authority can submit an individual the power of physical search is the most humiliating and the most objectionable. Unless there is a very good reason for having such a power, the Committee should reject it. What overwhelming reason can there possibly be for it?
I hope that the Minister of State will not talk about security reasons. A spy does not carry his credentials with him in his baggage. If he comes here for some nefarious or sinister purpose he will be very careful to ensure that nothing in his baggage, not merely documents, will tend to disclose his design to the lynx eyes of the immigration officer of Customs officer. I do not say that reasonable precautions should not be taken on security grounds. The fact that a man comes from the Commonwealth should not exempt him from loyalty and does not exempt the authorities from the duty of ensuring on reasonable grounds that in his case, as in the case of an alien, or in the case of any of us, that there is not some purpose of the kind. But how in the world this provision will enable a Customs officer to find out who is a spy and who is not I am utterly unable to understand.
This provision seems to have been put in the Bill almost automatically. It was known that Customs officers would be concerned with the Bill, and Customs officers can search for dutiable goods. But documents are not dutiable goods. As Customs officers were to act as special immigration officers for the purposes of the Bill, the Government had to look round and consider what powers they should give him. They decided on a power of search. This should not be the first thing of which one thinks. It should be the last. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: I support the Amendment. I hope that the Minister of State, who has already accepted three Amendments to the Schedule, which is indicative of how ill-considered, ill-digested and ill-prepared the Bill was, will also accept it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)

said, there can be justification for a power to search immigrants. The Bill has been introduced, according to the Government, because they want power to control the number of immigrants. It is supported by Tory back bench Members for a lot of other reprehensible reasons.

Mr. Diamond: Hear, hear.

Mr. Fletcher: On no count can a demand that immigrants should be searched be justified.
Can the Minister of State tell us what he thinks would have been gained from immigrants who have come to this country in the last year if there had been a right of search? What does he think the country has lost in the last twelve months by not having had in out legislation the power of search for which the Government now ask? The Bill deals with the control of the numbers of immigrants. Most individuals who come here as immigrants presumably bring very few documents with them. Such documents as they bring with them in future will be in the nature of credentials which they will inevitably wish to produce themselves.

Mr. Gower: Obviously, anyone coming into this country, including citizens of the United Kingdom who have been abroad for a holiday, is subject to the right of the Customs officer to ask him whether he has any goods which are subject to duty. We are all subject to that right. As the hon. Gentleman knows, power already exists under the Acts which empower Customs officers, to ask any of us to be searched in order to acquire that information.

Mr. Fletcher: I entirely deny the proposition that a Customs officer has the right to stop any British subject from coming into this country whenever he wishes. I entirely deny that he has the right to search any British subject. I assert that any British subject has the absolute right to come into this country whenever he likes at any time as a matter of common law without being subject to search. The same right has hitherto belonged to any Commonwealth subject.
Here the Government are asking for the right to search for documents. Documents are not contraband. They are not


things which interest the Government except in so far as the individual bringing the documents will voluntarily produce them in order to show his credentials. Obviously he will not bring incriminating documents with him. Obviously no amount of documents which he may carry will affect the housing problem, which might be influenced by the fact, that according to the Government, we shall have too many immigrants. No document can affect the character of a person when he gets here. Surely the Minister cannot say that an immigration officer, in deciding whether an immigrant should be admitted or not, will form an opinion about his character by reason of the documents which he is carrying.
It seems to me that there is no possible justification for this provision and I hope that the Minister, since he has started to accept our Amendments with a view to improving the Bill, will follow that course and will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Renton: To have any immigration control is distasteful. We have made that clear from the beginning. But I doubt very much whether there is any immigration control in the world which is properly exercised in which these powers are not taken from the local legislature and used occasionally, as reserve powers at any rate.
We are discussing three powers on these four Amendments—the power to demand documents, the power to detain them, if necessary, only for a short time, and the power to search for them. I should have thought that it was obvious that these powers were needed.
With regard to the power to demand documents, we must draw on the experience that we have had with the aliens control. There is no reason why we should not draw on that experience from which this country has gained a reasonable reputation for fair dealing. It is found quite often that people try to evade the aliens control by putting forward a particular reason why they wish to come here, whereas their real reason is quite different. Their real reason is often disclosed by documents in their possession. Therefore, there needs to be a power to demand documents.

Mr. S. Silverman: It is quite true that, if an alien presents himself and asks for admission, even if he has a visa, he has to give a reason for coming. But there is nothing in the Bill to empower immigration officers to ask a colonial immigrant why he is coming. That is not among the grounds for prohibition, except in so far as it is defined in the Bill. It is not a general power. The Bill does not say to an immigration officer, "If you are satisfied let him in; if you are not satisfied keep him out."

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that, in order to get himself in on the grounds listed in Clause 2, the intending immigrant, or a person who wants to come here for a particular time, may put forward a story which, on the face of it, appears to the immigration officer to be untrue in itself. It may even be patently untrue. Rather than refuse the man straight away, the officer may say to him, "Have you any documents?" The officer therefore has the power to demand documents.
That is a reasonable power in itself, and is not any kind of an oppression. There may be other cases in which the immigration officer asks a person to produce documents not merely to support his story but because the officer has reason to believe that the story is false. In such cases there should equally be a power for documents to be demanded.
8.30 p.m.
The power to detain documents arises for a rather special reason. Unfortunately, even at present, and long before this Bill was introduced, we have had experience of a great many people coming here from Commonwealth countries on forged passports. These forgeries can be detected very often by means of an ultra-violet examination. It is necessary to detain the documents—it may be only for a short time, but it is technically a detention of the documents. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), with his knowledge of the law, will understand what I am getting at. This needs to be done in order to decide whether a passport is forged or not. The power is needed.
The power to search, on the face of it, appears to be a more stringent power, but fundamentally, of course, it is a necessary ancillary to the power to


demand the documents because, if we say that there is to be power to demand documents—if somebody may be prosecuted for failing to produce documents on demand—then unless there is the power to search one cannot see whether the demand for documents has been complied with. That is the main reason why we need power of search.
I will avoid discussing the security reasons, as the hon. Member rightly asked me to. I do not rest my case on them, although, of course, we at the Home Office cannot ignore that factor. But there is the question, also mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, of the criminal who comes here. The hon. Gentleman suggested that criminals do not bring incriminating documents with them. I do not want to give too much publicity to the fact that they do, but it is remarkable the extent to which known criminals do bring incriminating documents with them.
We are often alerted to the fact that they are coming, and without the power to demand documents and to search for them a process of criminal detection might well be impeded. There is a good deal of crime which can be rightly described as international, and I am sorry to say that it takes place not only between this country and foreign countries but between this country and Commonwealth countries. This is a power which I must ask the House to let us have.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 15, line 25, at the end, to insert:
relevant to his admission to the United Kingdom under this Act".
This small Amendment arises because there is, in my view, uncertainty about the extent to which the immigration officer can go in demanding documents under paragraph 1 (3) of the Schedule. My Amendment would insist that, if he demands any documents, he can only demand those relevant to the question of whether the person concerned should be admitted to the United Kingdom. The reply may be that the power of the immigration officer to demand documents is anyway covered by the limiting of his purpose under paragraph 1 (1) of the Schedule; that is, that the immigra

tion officer shall have the power under paragraph 1 (1) of the Schedule to—
examine any person…for the purpose of determining what action, if any, should be taken in his case under the said Part I;
In other words, to some extent, therefore, the officer's power to examine at all is limited to discovering whether, under Part I, the immigrant is eligible for admission to this country. To that extent, there is this overall control over the power of the immigration officer to examine at all. However, it seems to me not at all clear, when one comes to paragraph 3, whether, in disputed cases, he shall be strictly limited and not generally limited to demanding documents which are relevant to that person's admission to the United Kingdom.
We are not, in this part of the Bill, dealing with the reasonable application of the Bill by humane Governments and humane immigration officers. We are dealing with the exceptional case which might arise, against which Parliament always has to provide, where immigration officers may be unreasonable and acting under unreasonable and tyrannical instructions from the Government. We want to be sure, as far as we can, that no Government and no immigration officer can usurp the power and demand things which should not be demanded for any reason at all. That is why we wish written into the Bill every possible safeguard that we can provide as we go along.
I am glad to say, to confirm what I had intended to convey earlier, although the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to regard it a little doubtfully, that I believed that our immigration officers are humane and act in a courteous way, and that we have every reason to be proud of the scenes at our ports in respect of the courtesy which intending visitors to this country have extended to them when they arrive. I am second to none in my admiration of that courtesy.
I am concerned that, in any extreme circumstances, no petty tyrant, no Government or immigration officer shall be in any doubt whatever as to how far these powers go. I therefore request the Government to write in at this point a particular and definite restriction of the powers, which may not be clear enough under the general restriction of powers in paragraph 1 of the Schedule.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not want to detain the Committee very long over this. I sympathise very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has said about the advisability of putting in any kind of restriction on the power to do objectionable and unnecessary things. I should like, however, to point out to the Committee how little that restriction is.
My hon. Friend said that we are not dealing with the case of a reasonable immigration officer or a reasonable Government. We are dealing with the possible case of an unreasonable Government or an unreasonable officer—an oppressive, malicious and vindictive officer. In such a case, what will he do if my hon. Friend has his way and the Amendment is accepted? Instead of, Have you any documents?" he would say, "Have you any documents relative to your application for admission?" During the course of his consideration, the immigrant would say, "No." When the immigrant says, "No," the immigration officer either says, or thinks, or acts as if he believes, "I do not believe you." He says, "I do not know about that; you say 'No', but I shall exercise my power of search", which we have just given him, deciding not to vote against it.
If he has once got the power of search and proceeds to exercise it, what will he do when he searches? Will he exclude from his search any documents not relevant to the application for admission? Of course, he will not. Once he searches, he will find, and what he finds he will take, and what he takes he will look at, and what he looks at he will use for any purpose which seems to him legitimate, useful, or profitable to him. Whether the Government accept the Amendment or not, the restriction which my hon. Friend thought that he was introducing on the power to demand documents seems to be very limited.

Mr. Chapman: I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). We need not go as far as that. There is an intermediate stage between an immigration officer easy to deal with and the one who goes the whole hog and has searches and everything that he can

think of. The intermediate stage is the stage at which he demands the production of documents. We must put a check on petty tyrants at that point by saying that they have the right to ask only for some documents and cannot tell everyone who comes to the ports to empty his pockets on the table, as he might otherwise have power to do. That is what I want to prevent.
Why, at that intermediate stage, should someone have to empty his wallet, show personal papers, and empty his brief case on to the table? At this intermediate stage, the officer should have power only to ask for documents relevant to the immigrant's admission.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does my hon. Friend say that if the immigration officer wants to exercise the power of search the wallet and pockets will be excepted?

Mr. Ede: I express doubts about any legal opinion expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) with very great diffidence, but I do not yet think that we have yet granted the power of search. I think that that is covered by an Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) in page 15, to leave out lines 28 to 31. That is where the power of search is to be found.
I generally support the Amendment, but I hope that on this occasion the Minister of State, who has been accepting views from this side of the Committee very readily, will not accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne that we have already granted the right of search. I can think of no other occasion on which I would ask him to ignore the advice tendered by my hon. Friend, but that advice seems dangerous on this occasion.

Mr. David Weitzman: Despite the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I hope that the Amendment will be accepted. I was very alarmed, during the discussion on the last Amendment, to hear as justification for the right to search the statement that a criminal carries papers and that the right to search ought to be available to discover if a man is a criminal. I had gathered


that the object of the Bill was not to discover whether an immigrant was a criminal, but to do what is set out in the Bill in respect of the rights of immigrants to enter this country.
If there is to be a right of search, it must be completely and absolutely limited to the one end—to relevant documents. I would strongly object to any right of search, but if there is to be such a right it must be strictly limited to the objective of the Bill, and, therefore, merely to documents which are relevant.

Mr. Renton: The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has missed a very important point. There may be a criminal who is on the run from a Commonwealth country and subject to the Extradition Acts. The hon. and learned Member said that he hoped that the Bill would not be used to intercept such a person, but he must have forgotten the provision in Clause 2 (3), which says:
if the immigration officer has reason to believe that he has been convicted in any country of any crime, wherever committed, which is an extradition crime within the meaning of the Extradition Acts…".
Two points arise. We have Extradition Acts with all the Commonwealth countries and it is only right that immigration control should be used as one means of fulfilling our obligations under such Acts. The second is that if someone has been convicted of a crime in certain circumstances—not all circumstances, as was explained earlier—that will be an obstacle to his immigration to this country. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to dismiss as utterly irrelevant to the purposes of the Bill the question of whether or not a person should be asked to produce documents which may be relevant in a criminal context.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: Then it is a relevant document and comes within the Amendment?

Mr. Renton: I agree, and I will come to that, but I wanted to clear up that point first, which, in a sense, is subsidiary to the main point raised in the debate.
The point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) is one with which I have a great deal of sympathy, and I give him an undertaking to consider the point that he has raised with a view to putting down Amendments on Report. I think that the paragraph as drafted is a bit wider than it need be, and needs to be tightened up in the way envisaged by the hon. Gentleman. I am advised that he has not got it quite right, but do not let us discuss drafting matters. These are the things on which it is best for us to take the appropriate advice.
I give the undertaking that I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said to ensure that this power to demand documents—and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is right in saying that that is all we are after at the moment—is restricted to documents which may be relevant to the questions which arise on the decision as to whether or not a person should be admitted or refused admission, or admitted subject to conditions in accordance with the Bill.
In view of that undertaking, perhaps the hon. Gentleman may not wish to press the matter.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to criminals being on the run from a Commonwealth country to this country. Can he say what powers the Government have at the moment for enabling security to be satisfied with regard to criminals on the run? Is he saying that without these powers he is powerless to protect the security of the country?

Mr. Renton: I am in a very difficult position. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me too much. Perhaps I was incautious in jumping to the bait of the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North. All that I think I should say in answer to the hon. Gentleman is that it seems absurd to be passing through Parliament a Bill dealing with immigration without ensuring that in that Bill we take such powers as are necessary to enable us to fulfil our obligations to other members of the Commonwealth where criminals are concerned.

Mr. Chapman: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I intend to withdraw the Amendment, but I am a little alarmed about what he said just now. After all, the purpose of the Bill is not to discover for the purposes of extradition criminals who are on the run. The purpose of the Bill is to discover whether anybody who wishes to be admitted to this country is a criminal on the run. That is the only reason why we wish to give the Government the right to search for documents. It would be irrelevant, and outside the purposes of the Bill, to introduce anything else.
It may be that on the spur of the moment the hon. and learned Gentleman used a phrase which he did not intend to use, and that I am more dumb than anybody else and have not understood the position. This can be sorted out when we reach the next stage of the Bill and the hon. and learned Gentleman's own Amendment is put down. Then we can pursue this matter a little further. I am most grateful to him for what he said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Diamond: I beg to move, in page 15, to leave out lines 28 to 31.
These are the lines in the Bill which give the power to search a person and to search baggage. Searching is the greatest form of indignity, and I am asking that these powers be withdrawn because I want to do what I can to lessen the damage that is being done by the Bill and to deny to others the right of saying: "Here are the first elements of a police State creeping in under the pretext of a Bill to control immigrants from the Commonwealth". I shall not be satisfied—let me make this point clear straight away—by any unproved, detailed allegation that this power is needed for security.
Quite obviously, the State does not rely exclusively on this power to protect itelf. We do not know, and we do not wish to know, the detailed methods by which criminals are apprehended. We want to know that people who are not proved to be criminals have the rights under normal justice of any other person and to be absolutely satisfied that this indignity is not imposed unnecessarily.
Supposing that it were alleged that it this Amendment were accepted one undesirable person would get into this country. I still say that on balance of advantage it is immensely more important to see that human beings are not subjected to the indignities of a personal search, being stripped and left in the most powerless and embarrassing condition that any human being can be put in, just because they want to come to the Mother Country. On balance there would have to be absolute justification for that in far more cases than indicated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I say quite specifically that we should have these offending lines removed, particularly when it is borne in mind that the immigrant generally is a newcomer, coming here for the first time from a different country, different customs, often with a different coloured skin, feeling great uncertainty and with no confidence in himself or herself.
What on earth is to happen to this newcomer when the first thing that he or she is subjected to is close questioning, followed possibly by a search? The search of a person of a different coloured skin on coming into this country exposes him to the utmost sensitivity—I do not mean physically but psychologically. Therefore, I would do anything that I could to persuade the Government not to retain this power of searching. I repeat that it cannot be on grounds of security that this is proposed. It is only in television shows that all the criminals carry secret documents in the lining of their baggage or in the heels of their shoes. This is puerile stuff on which we do not want to waste time.
I want to direct the attention of the Government to the words of paragraph 1 (3), before the proviso:
with a view to ascertaining whether he is carrying or conveying documents.
Once this provision is passed there will be nothing to prevent an immigration officer searching an individual as a result of any whim or fancy on his part. He does not have to satisfy anybody else that this is the purpose of the search; it is the purpose in his own mind. This provision gives carte blanche to any immigration officer to say, "Come here and strip."
Surely this power is not required. Assuming that we must have some control of immigration but want to undo


the damage done by the introduction of the Bill, the Government must surely want to help in that regard. I therefore appeal to them to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Renton: I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) was in the Chamber when we discussed an earlier Amendment dealing with the power to demand documents and to detain and search. I believe that the view I then put forward quite fully was accepted. At any rate, the Amendment was not pressed. If the hon. Member had heard my speech on that occasion I do not think that he would have made the speech to which we have just listened. I explained that, so far as we have been able to find out, these powers are contained in every immigration control scheme in the world, and it is inconceivable that we should have such a scheme without these powers, however distasteful they may be.
The Amendment is concerned only with the power to search, and that power is necessary for at least three reasons. First, the power to demand documents would be made useless without the power to search. A person could be prosecuted for refusing to produce a document on demand, but unless he had been searched we would not be in a position to show whether or not he was able to produce it. That is a purely technical but nevertheless valid reason.
Secondly, it is essential to have the power to cover criminal cases and security cases. As I said earlier, I do not want to go into these matters at all deeply, or to base my arguments solely upon them.
Thirdly, and more commonly, although hope the power will be regarded only as a reserve power and very rarely used, our experience in the administration of legislation with regard to aliens—and we have no reason to believe that this experience would not sometimes be repeated in the administration of the provisions of the Bill—shows that people tend to put forward one reason for gaining admission to the country when they have a fundamentally different reason for doing so, which documents in their possession would show.
Further, as I explained earlier, the power to demand documents is some

times necessary to enable a person coming in to confirm his story, when it is obviously desirable that it should be confirmed. It is also sometimes necessary because the story seems to be quite inconsistent, or patently untrue. If the documents in the person's possession are revealed the immigration officer is able to show beyond doubt that the person concerned is not telling the truth. In the circustances, he has justification for refusing admission. I am sorry to bore hon. Members by repeating the speech that I made on an earlier Amendment, but it is essential to bear these matters in mind.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: I have heard the Minister say on two occasions that there is no country with immigration laws where this power of search does not exist. That is supposed to be a justification for having the power here. The Minister should remember what we propose to do by the Bill. For the very first time we are denying to people the right to come to their Mother Country. For that reason we are placing certain restrictions upon them. I agree that this is one of the most disgraceful powers and one of the worst humiliations which could be placed upon an individual, to search him in this way and impose that indignity upon him. It is not justified by the Minister saying that he had explained matters during the discussion on a previous Amendment.
The Minister purports to advance certain reasons as justification for this. Let us examine them. He says that there is a power to demand documents which is made useless unless we have the right to search. I am against the right to demand documents, but, even were there such a right, what is it for? Suppose an immigrant comes to this country and the immigration officer is dissatisfied about whether he has established his right to enter the country. The immigrant is asked for documents which he refuses to produce. What is the right of demand for? Is it to make the immigration officer see whether he can, by force, establish a case on behalf of the immigrant? If the immigrant has documents and wishes to produce them, he will do so. What right has an immigration officer to go through the baggage of an immigrant to search for documents? That reason is entirely absurd.
The second reason, apparently, is that we must establish whether the immigrant is a criminal or should be refused admission for security reasons. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), and as I am quite sure the Minister knows, there are plenty of powers under which an individual and his documents could be examined, apart from any powers which it is proposed to insert in the Bill, which is not designed to find out whether a person is a criminal or should be refused admittance for security reasons. I deprecate that reason being advanced as a justification.
The third reason is extraordinary. The Minister says that we have had great experience under the Aliens Order and have found the power useful there. I do not care whether that is so or not. We are not here dealing with aliens, but with immigrants. Why should we expose them to this disgraceful indignity for that reason? It is too bad of the Government, having introduced this disgraceful Bill, to impose a further humiliation on people wishing to visit the Mother Country. I suggest that the Government should look at this matter again. I emphasise that it is disgraceful and humiliating. I can hardly think of words sufficiently strong to condemn it and I hope the Government will see reason and decide to dispense with this disgraceful power.

Mr. Ede: The real reason the Minister has given us for this provision is that everyone else has done it and, therefore, we should get in at the tail of the queue. I have always thought, with Milton, that it is the duty of this country to show other nations how to live. This is one of the occasions in which that can be done.

Mr. Renton: I did not say that I put this forward because everybody else had done it. I said that I did not conceive that it was possible for any immigration control in any civilised country to be made effective without these powers. I may have added that I presume that every other country has done it, but the great point is that no control could be effective, in our opinion, without these powers.

Mr. Ede: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will read some of

the things he has said this evening. Then he will find that I did not misinterpret what he said.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I wish to say a few words on this Amendment. The Minister is forgetting very important facts. This is an immigration Bill, not a Bill to search out criminals. If we required such a Measure it would be because we had had many more criminals in this country than has been shown by records up to the present.
The Minister and the Government ought to realise that this is a Bill which will be put into operation in the not too distant future. It will have a very damning effect on our nation in the eyes of every country in the world. I cannot see why the Minister should demand that this search should take place. If the person before the immigration officer is a criminal, the Government have other ways and means in the existing laws of making certain that he can be detained and searched.
Although probably the majority of immigration officers are the best type of person in the world, and capable of doing their job well, we may have the vicious type of officer who tries to show his authority. He would have power to create the impression among all immigrants that he was the kind of officer generally to be found in this country. That could do great harm to relations between this country and the Commonwealth and Colonies.
I beg the Minister and the Government to realise that every little action taken against the coloured people who belong to this Commonwealth is something which will damn us for ever. The future of the world may be greatly affected by actions of this kind. It would not be difficult to write this Amendment into the Bill. The Government should realise that the greatest problem in the world, far the greater than problems as between the Communist and the democratic systems, is racial relationships between nations. Every pin-prick of this kind will make it far more difficult to improve those relationships. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: There are a number of other Amendments we are anxious to discuss before the Guillotine falls.


Therefore, I do not propose to prolong this discussion. I merely register my extreme dissatisfaction with the Minister's reply and I hope my hon. Friends will support this Amendment in the Division Lobby.

Mr. John Wells: I think that we all respect the legal opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). We were impressed by the point made by the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), but the fact remains that if we are to have an efficient immigration control we must have this sort of power. Although hon. Members opposite have made their point—we appreciate it—we must have an efficient immigration service.

The hon. Member for Dearne Valley cast slight doubts on the quality of our immigration officers. I must take him up on that, because in my view our immigration officers are very fine men. They do a very difficult job in an honourable, efficient and kindly manner. I therefore hope that the Committee will support the Government in rejecting the Amendment, because if our immigration officers are to be fully supported they must have an efficient system behind them.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 223. Noes 177.

Division No. 86.]
AYES
[9.11 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Drayson, G. B.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Aitken, W. T.
Duncan, Sir James
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Arbuthnot, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Joseph, Sir Keith


Aahton, Sir Hubert
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kerans, Cdr. J, S.


Atkins, Humphrey
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kitson, Timothy


Barlow, Sir John
Errington, Sir Eric
Leather, E, H. C.


Barter, John
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Leavey, J. A.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leburn, Gilmour


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Farr, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Finlay, Graeme
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Berkeley, Humphry
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lilley, F. J. P.


Biffen, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Freeth, Denzil
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Bishop, F. P.
Gammans, Lady
Litchfield, Capt. John


Black, Sir Cyril
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Longbottom, Charles


Bossom, Clive
Gibson-Watt, David
Loveys, Walter H.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gilmour, Sir John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Goodhew, Victor
McAdden, Stephen


Brewis, John
Gough, Frederick
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Gower, Raymond
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Brooman-White, R.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
McMaster, Stanley R.


Buck, Antony
Green, Alan
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bullard, Denys
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maginnis, John E.


Bullus, Wing Commander Erie
Gurden, Harold
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marten, Neil


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray


Cary, Sir Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Channon, H. P. G.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mills, Stratton


Chataway, Christopher
Hay, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morgan, William


Clark, William (Nottingham, s.)
Hendry, Forbes
Morrison, John


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hiley, Joseph
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Cleaver, Leonard
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Nabarro, Gerald


Cole, Norman
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Collard, Richard
Hocking, Philip N.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Cooke, Robert
Holland, Philip
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Cooper, A. E.
Hollingworth, John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hopkins, Alan
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Corfield, F. V.
Hornby, R. P.
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Costain, A. P.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Partridge, E.


Coulson, Michael
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Peel, John


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hughes-Young, Michael
Percival, Ian


Curran, Charles
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, John


Currie, G. B. H.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Dalkeith, Earl of
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Dance, James
Jackson, John
Pitman, Sir James


Deedee, W. F.
James, David
Pitt, Miss Edith


de Ferranti, Basil
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pott, Percivall


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jennings, J. C.
Prior, J. M. L.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Doughty, Charles
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pym, Francis




Quennell, Miss J. M.
Speir, Rupert
Turner, Colin


Rawlinson, Peter
Stanley, Hon. Richard
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Stevens, Geoffrey
Vane, W. M. F.


Rees, Hugh
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stoddart, J. A.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Renton, David
Stoddart-Scott. Col. Sir Malcolm
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Storey, Sir Samuel
Walder, David


Ridsdale, Julian
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Walker, Peter


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Talbot, John E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, s.)
Tapsell, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Russell, Ronald
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Webster, David


Seymour, Leslie
Taylor, W. J, (Bradford, N.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sharples, Richard
Temple, John M.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Shaw, M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wise, A. R.


Skeet, T, H. H,
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Smith. Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Woodnutt, Mark


Smithers, Peter
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Worsley, Marcus


Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)



Spearman, Sir Alexander
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. McLaren




NOES


Ainsley, William
Hayman, F. H.
Popplewell, Ernest


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Healey, Denis
Prentice, R. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, Stan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Probert, Arthur


Baird, John
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Proctor, W. T.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Randall, Harry


Beaney, Alan
Hilton, A. V.
Rankin, John


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Holman, Percy
Redhead, E. C.


Benson, Sir George
Holt, Arthur
Rhodes, H.


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blyton, William
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Boardman, H.
Hoy, James H.
Robinson, Kenneth(St. Pancras, N.)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ross, William


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Short, Edward


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hunter, A. E.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Skeffington, Arthur


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, George
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Snow, Julian


Callaghan, James
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chapman, Donald
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, s.)
Kelley, Richard
Steele, Thomas


Cronin, John
Kenyon, Clifford
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ledger, Ron
Stones, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Deer, George
Lipton, Marcus



Delargy, Hugh
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Diamond, John
MacColl, James
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Dodds, Norman
McInnes, James
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Donnelly, Desmond
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Timmons, John


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edelman, Maurice
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Wade, Donald


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Manuel, A. C.
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mapp, Charles
Warbey, William


Evans, Albert
Mason, Roy
Watkins, Tudor


Fitch, Alan
Mayhew, Christopher
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Eric
Mendelson, J. J.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Forman, J. C.
Milne, Edward
Wilkins, W. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, C. R.
Willey, Frederick


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Morris, John
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Neal, Harold
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Ginsburg, David
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Oram, A, E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grey, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Winter bottom, R. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Owen, Will
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Padley, W. E.
Woof, Robert


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Parker, John
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Paton, John



Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pavitt, Laurence
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Hannan, William
Peart, Frederick
Mr. Lawson.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pentland, Norman

Mr. D. Foot: I beg to move, in page 15, line 35, to leave out "such time as he thinks proper" and to insert:
a period not exceeding thirty days".
The effect of the Amendment is perfectly clear. Instead of giving the immigration officer unlimited discretion to hold documents for as long as he chooses, the Amendment puts a time limit on it. I do not propose to argue the merits of the Amendment at any length, because it speaks for itself. Assuming that we must give powers to the immigration officer, they should not be unlimited powers. If we give him the power to take documents, the time during which those documents may be retained should not be so extensive to amount to confiscation of them, because that is what is meant if no time limit is inserted. The Amendment goes quite a long way and proposes that a lengthy time limit of 30 days shall apply, but we are also saying that after the lapse of those 30 days the documents should be handed back.

Mr. Renton: The Amendment appears to us to be acceptable in principle for the reasons given by the hon. and learned Gentleman but, as drafted, would enable the immigration officer to detain documents for much longer than is really necessary in most cases for examining them. Thus, what we consider is needed is an Amendment which combines the merit of the phrasing of the Bill and the merit of the phrasing of the Amendment so that we would have something which reads somewhat as follows: "An immigration officer may examine and may detain, for such time not exceeding 30 days as he thinks proper, for the purposes of examining any documents produced."
If the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to withdraw his Amendment—and I am grateful to him for moving it—we will see to it that an Amendment is tabled on Report which, as I say, combines the merit of his views and ours.

Mr. D. Foot: In view of the hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Harold Garden: I beg to move, in page 15, line 41, after "inspector", to insert:

and shall include power to examine a person by X-ray for medical purposes, and also to make an examination for the purpose of ascertaining whether vaccination for smallpox has been successful".
The idea behind this Amendment has been put to me principally by the British Medical Association, which has been worried for some time about the number of immigrants suffering from tuberculosis, many of them, unfortunately, having the disease in an advanced stage. The difficulty is not so much that they cannot be dealt with. The difficulty is in identification. We do not know how many people have come into the country suffering from tuberculosis. This is the trouble. If they were all identified, good medical advice could be given to them and they could be directed for medical attention.
Medical officers of health also have emphasised to me the seriousness of the situation. For some years, the medical officer of health for chest diseases in Birmingham has been concerned, and he told me that as many as 8 per cent. of immigrants from Asian Commonwealth countries suffered from tuberculosis. Recently, of course, there was the very sad case of a girl who arrived in this country suffering from the disease in an advanced stage. Without the provision which the Amendment contains, these people, as I see it and as the British Medical Association sees it, will continue to come into the country, though there will be no power of examination to identify the sufferers.
We have included words covering vaccination against smallpox. Most of the people who came in recently were, we hope, identified, but here again we are not quite sure how many came from Pakistan and other places without being properly vaccinated. When I visited the airport I found that the medical officer was not aware of the powers which he has or, at least, the powers which the Home Office tells us exist at present. He was, of course, doing grand work and matters were quickly put right, but on questioning him I found that he was not sure what the law was. We hope that the Amendment will be accepted to clear matters up.

Mr. Denis Howell: Which airport?

Mr. Gurden: London Airport. I am glad to see the hon. Member here, because he has made clear in correspondence that he supports the health protection aspects of the Bill. I hope that we shall have his support and the support of other hon. Members opposite for the Amendment.
I am glad to see the hon. Member present for another reason. He has been absent for a considerable part of our debates and Divisions, yet he went out of his way to point out that I was not here for part of a debate the other day at a time when I was having a meal. His remarks were widely reported, much to his delight, no doubt. I have, in fact, been here for all our debates right from the beginning. We are glad to see the hon. Gentleman here now and we look forward to receiving his support on this Amendment.
9.30 p.m.
I do not think that there can be much argument about the Amendment, except perhaps, its drafting. It appears that even those people who have considerable opposition to the Bill as a whole, which I quite understand, seem to be in no doubt that they would lend support to a Measure which afforded health protection and certainly one, at any rate, which caused people to be identified if only for the sake of treatment.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Gentleman said that the authorship of the first part of his Amendment came from the British Medical Association. Will he confirm that the second part of it is not sponsored by the Association?

Mr. Gurden: I am not responsible for the first part, but I should have thought that the second part was sponsored by common sense.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful for the opportunity of being almost invited to participate in this debate by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), whose dinner hour, I now observe, takes a considerable time, in view of his lengthy absences from our deliberations. I do not begrudge him a hearty appetite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I intend to get on with it, but if I have many interruptions from hon. Members opposite I shall take twice as long.
In presenting his information to the Committee, the hon. Member for Selly Oak omitted to give the figures for tuberculosis in Birmingham. It is an inconvenient fact that the city has now broken down the nationalities of people in our hospitals suffering from this disease. It is an inconvenient fact that last year Irishmen were at the top of the list. Unfortunately, 97 Irishmen are now in Birmingham hospitals suffering from this disease. People from Asia were next on the list, but people from the West Indies were a long way down the list. In fact there were only 20, or under 20, people in Birmingham hospitals suffering from the disease.
Although I am in favour of health checks, like my hon. Friends, I am not in favour of health checks which discriminate in the way suggested by the Amendment. We are in favour of health checks which apply to everybody. As the Amendment and the Bill, on the showing of the Government, are not to be applied to the Irish, it is clear that X-rays for medical purposes will not be applied to the people from the country most affected, namely, Southern Ireland.

Mr. Gurden: Mr. Gurden indicated dissent.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Member for Selly Oak shakes his head, but that must be the case. If the Bill is not to be applied to the Irish, this particular part of it will not be applied to the Irish. On his own showing, the hon. Member for Selly Oak is prepared to allow to come into this country without health checks the people on whom they should be made.
The same applies to vaccination. I agree very much with the hon. Member for Selly Oak that the Ministry of Health has been very recalcitrant in this matter. When I examined the situation in Birmingham, I found that no information about it has been sent to medical officers in the various cities. I tried to question the Minister of Health the other day in the House about an aeroplane which was diverted to Elmdon from Manchester carrying passengers from a part of Europe seriously affected by the recent smallpox epidemic.
There were no preparations at Elmdon Airport for the reception of those passengers. The matter was left purely


to the initiative of a Customs officer who rang up the medical officer of health of Birmingham and said, "Do you think anything should be done about these people who have just arrived? Should I let them in or not?" The medical officer of health turned out on a Saturday afternoon and said, "I will come down. Keep them there".
On the aircraft, he found a Chinese gentleman who had travelled across the world, as far as one could find out, visiting every place affected by smallpox. The medical officer of health said to him, "You do not come a yard further until you have been immunised". The gentleman was courteous and cooperative and agreed to be immunised. But the medical officer told me later, "I did not know what power I had to insist that he was immunised, but I did insist".
The Ministry of Health had no machinery at all. The Royal Dermatological Survey, with a weekly record of figures, showed that in November and December last year there were 300 cases of smallpox and 30 deaths a week in Karachi. That information was never drawn to the attention of any medical officer of health. It was not until the medical officers themselves drew the Ministry's attention to this disturbing information that they received any help or guidance from the Ministry. Then the Ministry woke up and steps were taken which made this Amendment unnecessary, because the kind of information the hon. Gentleman wants is being asked for at the ports of entry now.
Whilst I support the ideals which he has in mind in this respect, I do not think that this Amendment is the way to tackle the problem. In any case, to tackle the problem on the basis of this Bill will exclude from the provisions of such medical checks the very nationals who should be most subject to such safeguards.

Mr. Renton: This Amendment would do two things. It would give power to a medical officer to examine a person by X-ray for medical purposes, and it would also give power to make an examination to ascertain whether a vaccination for smallpox had been successful.
It has always been our intention that medical officers should have the oppor

tunity of examining people by X-ray in cases where it seemed to be desirable. To that extent, in order to put the matter beyond doubt, we are prepared to accept, in principle, the part of the Amendment which deals with that aspect. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) will not mind my saying that his drafting does not quite suit the occasion, but we will be glad to consider a suitable Amendment for the Report stage which will cover the point.
It is not necessary to put anything down about examination to ascertain vaccination in the terms suggested by my hon. Friend because, under public health legislation, medical officers already have power to carry out just this sort of examination.

Mr. Fletcher: Is there similar power to examine, by X-ray, aliens when they arrive in this country?

Mr. Renton: It is very much a question of how one interprets the present Aliens Order. Aliens have been examined by X-ray in pursuance of the medical officers' general power to examine for health purposes under the Aliens Order, but we feel that it is better to put the matter beyond doubt and accept my hon. Friend's suggestion of a specific power written into the Bill.

Mr. Fletcher: May we take it that, as a result of what the hon. and and learned Gentleman is to do in this matter, there will be greater powers in this respect over Commonwealth immigrants than there are over alien immigrants?

Mr. Renton: I would not be prepared to say that. But as a matter of fact we are dealing with this Bill and it is right that we should get it correct. I would prefer to have notice of the hon. Member's question, in order to be able to give the answer with surety.

Mr. Denis Healey: Can the Minister say whether the Home Secretary proposes to introduce legislation to ensure that aliens are covered by the same regulations as he proposes for Commonwealth citizens? As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) has pointed out, the problem of tuberculosis probably arises more with aliens than with Commonwealth citizens.

Mr. Renton: We are dealing here with Commonwealth citizens, and I would remind the Committee that there are very wide powers under the public health legislation for examining anyone arriving in this country, even someone normally domiciled and resident here.

Dr. Donald Johnson: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), who sponsored this Amendment, and myself welcome very much my hon. and learned Friend's acceptance of the Amendment in the terms in which he made it. I am quite sure that my profession as a whole will welcome the step that he proposes to take by introducing some specific powers this Bill, first, so that medical officers at the ports will know exactly what their powers are, a matter which appears to have been in some doubt recently over smallpox entries, and secondly, because of the problem created throughout the country by these cases.
I hope that I will not appear to detain the Committee if I try to impress the point by giving particulars of one or two cases, which have been supplied to me by the medical officer of health in Carlisle, which I think should be on the record of this Committee while we are debating it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because in Carlisle, while we have possibly had immigrant problems in the past in the city, we have not been seriously affected by this particular one. In fact, I imagine that we had no problem at all until I received a lettter from my medical officer of health drawing my attention to three cases in the city.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Is it right that when the principle of an Amendment has already been conceded, when there is a guillotine Motion in operation and when we are getting very rapidly towards the time when the Guillotine falls, an hon. Member should take up the limited time we have in order to push at an open door?

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): It is not a point of order which the hon. Member refers to me. It may be a point of substance, but it is not a point of order.

Dr. Johnson: I will be as brief as possible in giving the particulars of these cases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] There are three cases. First, a Chinese, aged 20, who had four months previously arrived from Hong Kong and who was found suffering from extensive disease of the right lung. He was employed as a waiter in a restaurant frequented by many young people in the City. The second case, as a result of contact examination, was that of a Chinese cook aged 44, who had been——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that this is the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and that the Amendment is to deal with Commonwealth citizens.

Dr. Johnson: Surely, if Hong Kong is in the Commonwealth—[HON. MEMBERS: "But a Chinese?"] Yes, from Hong Kong. I should hope that hon. Members opposite are aware that most of the population of Hong Kong is Chinese—of Chinese race.
This second case also came from Hong Kong. He was employed at the same restaurant as the previous patient and was also found to be suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. The third case, an even more pointed one, was that of a Pakistani who was referred to the chest clinic by his doctor, and was found to have extensive disease of both lungs. He had been in the United Kingdom since October, 1961, a matter of three months, and had been employed as a weaver in a local factory which had been the subject of regular surveys by a mass miniature radiography unit. In the days before this patient was engaged, the unit had paid one of its periodic visits, but there were no cases at the factory. As the result of this man's employment, some 200 employees at the factory are now having to be examined as contacts.
I think that this last case makes the point in particular, because I was talking to our medical officer in Carlisle, who emphasised the fact that whereas before this factory was quite clear of tuberculosis and only needed visiting perhaps once a year by the unit, he would now have to visit it every three months for the next couple of years to examine for contacts. We do not have the resources in our Health Service to cope with that kind of thing. The hon.


Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) said that there were no figures for Birmingham, but if we have instances like that in Carlisle—

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I do not want to interrupt, but I gave the figures for Birmingham.

Dr. Johnson: I apologise if I am wrong. I understood that the hon. Member said that there were no figures for Birmingham which separated Commonwealth citizens from others. If these are instances in Carlisle, where the number of immigrants can almost be counted on the fingers of two hands, what must be the position in Birmingham and Nottingham and other places where Asiatics have come in comparatively large numbers? That is why I thank my hon. and learned Friend for accepting the Amendment. I am glad to have had the opportunity to place these facts on record.

Mr. Gurden: I very much appreciate the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend and I see the difficulty about the drafting of the Amendment. Despite the opposition from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. D. Foot: I beg to move, in page 16, line 6, after "writing", to insert:
which shall set out the reasons for such refusal.
I hope that the purpose of this Amendment will be clear on the face of it. Pursuant to Clause 2, an immigration officer can refuse admission to the United Kingdom and does so by notice in writing. The Amendment provides that the notice shall set out the reasons for the refusal. My hon. Friends and I have tabled the Amendment because it seems to us to raise an important point of principle. When a Commonwealth citizen comes to this country and is denied the right, which up to now he has enjoyed, of free entry into the country, he is entitled to know the reasons for the refusal.
The Amendment takes the Committee back to Clause 2 and I ask hon. Members to remind themselves of what that Clause contains. Subsection (1) contains

a general power to refuse any immigrant the right of admission to the United Kingdom. It is true that certain rights are given under subsection (2) and that if a man wishes to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of employment and has a voucher, or is in a position to support himself, he is entitled to be admitted. But he is entitled to be admitted only if he can satisfy the immigration officer of one or other of those conditions.
The matter still remains in the discretion of the immigration officer from whose decision there is no kind of appeal. If the immigration officer says that he is not satisfied that the immigrant's purpose in entering the United Kingdom is for employment here, or if he says that he is not satisfied that the immigrant is in a position to support himself, that is the end of the matter. The immigration officer does not need to say so. All he needs to do is to give a blank refusal and all that the immigrant will know is that his application for admission has been turned down.
Then we go on to subsection (3, a):
if it appears to the immigration officer, or to a medical inspector, that he is a person suffering from mental disorder…
He may not be suffering from mental disorder. The immigration officer may not be competent to judge mental disorder, but he is to be made the judge in this case, and if it appears to him—whether it is well founded or not—that the man is suffering from mental disorder, that is the end of it.
The subsection is even wider, because it goes on to say:
or that it is otherwise undesirable for medical reasons that he should be admitted.
What is the test of undesirability? We do not know whether it has to be a contagious disease, or a serious disease, or what the test is to be. In each case the immigration officer will apply his own standard. We were told earlier today when we were dealing with the question of ex-Service men who had fought in the war that immigration officers would be instructed by circular to deal sympathetically with such cases, but there is no means of finding out how they will carry out their instructions, because in each case it is the immigration officer who will be the final judge, and I repeat that there will be no appeal from his decision.
I go on to paragraph (b), which says:
if the immigration officer has reason to believe that he has been convicted in any country of any crime, wherever committed, which is an extradition crime within the meaning of the Extradition Acts…
It is conceivable that there may be a mistake. The man may not have been convicted at all. It may even be a case of mistaken identity, but who is to know, because the immigration officer does not have to give particulars? He does not have to give his reasons. All that he has to do is to issue a notice in writing refusing admission.
It ought to be observed also, that even then the immigration officer can apply his own standard. He is not bound to keep out an immigrant because he has been convicted of an extraditable offence. The subsection says that the immigrant may be refused admission, and it is for the immigration officer to satisfy himself not only that an extraditable offence has been committed, but to apply some tests of his own to decide whether that offence which he believes to have been committed is such as to justify exclusion from the United Kingdom.
I go on to what, in my view, is even more serious, because paragraph (c) says:
if his admission would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be contrary to the interests of national security.
As I observed on an earlier Clause, the Secretary of State does not proceed on his own knowledge. He has to proceed on a report which is presented to him, a report which may be drawn from all kinds of sources, some perhaps reliable, and others perhaps unreliable. It may be that the Secretary of State, or the officer who advises him, will be misled, and those who have had anything to do with security matters know how easy it is to make a mistake. One is not dealing with certainty but with reports that come from all kinds of sources, and some of them may be rather doubtful sources.
Here is this test as to security, because paragraph (c) continues:
contrary to the interests of national security.
Suppose that the report which is laid before the Secretary of State is misconceived. Suppose that it is based on false information. The immigrant has

no means of knowing. He has no opportunity of making an answer at all, and, therefore, we may do a considerable injustice simply because no reasons are given. All that we have is the fiat of the immigration officer, and that is the end of the matter.
If the Amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, it will enable the immigrant to have some kind of safeguard. He will be able to say, "Your grounds are misconceived", or, "I am not suffering from this disease", or "I was not convicted of this offence", or "Your sources of information are misleading". He will be able to say that provided the reasons for refusing him admission are furnished to him. He will be able to come to a Member of Parliament who will be able to pursue the matter, but it will not be possible to deal with the case if no reasons are given. I suggest that this provision runs contrary to the whole trend of our modern legislation.
Only a year or two ago we passed the Tribunals and Enquiries Act, which was the culmination of a struggle that had gone on for a good many years in this House, dating from the early 1930s—the struggle to make Ministers give reasons for their decisions. The Departments resisted over a very long period of time. They resisted when it was first proposed in the days of the Committee on Ministers' Powers, but they did not resist quite so strongly in the days of the Franks Report, and eventually we passed legislation through this House saying that where Ministers took decisions as the result of an inquiry and those decisions affected the rights of individual citizens, the Minister must give reasons for what he did. That was, I believe, a very considerable advance.
The decisions referred to in Section 12 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act are mostly decisions affecting property rights. Here we are dealing with something that is even more important than property rights, we are dealing with the rights hitherto unchallenged of a Commonwealth citizen to come here, to make his home here, and to earn his livelihood here. We say that is no less important, and, indeed, more important than the kind of right which was contemplated under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act.
It seems to me that what we are doing is to give an almost unfettered discretion to an official. If we do that, at least his mental processes ought to be revealed, and, as a matter of elementary justice, if a man is told that he cannot come into this country, he ought to know the reason.

Mr. Weitzman: I support the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) for the reasons that he has given. It is extremely important to note that nowhere in the Bill is there any obligation on the part of an immigration officer to communicate to the immigrant the reasons for refusal. It is important to have these reasons, and that is why I support the Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: I support the Amendment for reason in addition to the weighty reasons given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). It is important to remind the Committee and, in particular, the Attorney-General that it is open to the immigration officer to refuse an immigrant permission for none of the reasons given by my hon. and learned Friend and, indeed, for no reasons relevant to the immigrant himself, but to something totally different. Last week, on 6th February, the Attorney-General said:
In many cases"—
not an isolated case—
permission may be refused not on account of any personal idiosyncrasies of the individual, but because sufficient numbers have already been admitted to the country for that particular time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 354.]
Surely it is only just that if an immigrant is refused admission through no fault whatever of his own—nothing to do with a criminal record, or a security risk, of medical reasons, or because he has not a proper voucher, but because sufficient numbers have been admitted for that particular time—he should be told why he has been refused admission.
This is the most monstrous injustice created by the Bill. The immigrant will not be told why he has been refused admission. He will not be told whether

it is because of some personal idiosyncrasy on the part of the immigration officer, or because some quota fixed by the Government, the terms of which may or may not have been communicated to the immigrant's home country, or to the House, has been filled.
It is unjust that the immigration officer should have power to refuse entry on these grounds. It is doubly unjust when the immigration officer does not have to communicate to the immigrant the reason why he is not being permitted to enter. For these reasons I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

10.0 p.m.

Dr. Mabon: Many patients come to doctors' surgeries full of anguish because, after applying for a certain position, they have been turned down because they have not passed a medical test, and because no medical reasons have been given them. I have had that experience many times myself. These people come to their doctors seeking advice about a condition from which they did not know they suffered. It is one of the most agonising experiences anyone can go through, especially if there is a long interval between the examination and refusal, and their seeking advice to find out what has to be cured.
I suggest that when persons appear in this country for the first time, having travelled long distances, and are then turned back without any reason being given them, it causes them a great deal of unhappiness. It seems wrong that we should not admit these people for treatment here, although that may be a sentimental and unpractical point. Nevertheless, some explanation should be given to these people. They should be told whether they are suffering from a severe form of tuberculosis, or whatever it may be, and given some kind of certificate describing the findings of the medical men who have carried out the examination.
It seems rather pointless to spend a great deal of money at the ports providing facilities for medical men to arrive at certain conclusions if we are then unwilling to tell the unfortunate wretches who fail to pass the examinations that they are suffering from certain diseases and that the sooner they are


treated at home the better. As I say. it seems a pity to me that they should be sent back home and not allowed to take advantage of our excellent Health Service. These people are not foreigners; they are our own people, from the Commonwealth.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I have listened with interest to the debate and to every word uttered in support of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) made reference to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, and I am glad that he recognised that it was a good Measure, introduced by this Government.
I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members opposite, but I must tell them that it would not be right to accept the Amendment. It imposes a general obligation in all cases to set out in writing the reasons for the refusal of admission. I can think of cases where that would not be desirable. They may form a small minority, but I do not share the hon. and learned Member's view that it is desirable to provide information even if the refusal is on the ground that admission would be contrary to the interests of national security.
There may be other cases where it is not even desirable in the interests of the immigrants. This may be so in the case of mental disorder. The Amendment provides that it should be a statutory obligation to provide that information in writing on every occasion. I hope that the Committee will not think that it follows from the argument that I am advancing that an immigrant who is refused admission by an immigration officer will never be told for what reason the officer finds it impossible to admit him. I am advised, and it is my belief, that in the vast majority of cases that information will be supplied. To that extent the substance of the hon. and learned Member's point will he met. But it would be going too far, and would be wrong in the circumstances, to accept a statutory obligation to be placed on every immigration officer to give those reasons in writing in every case. For those reasons I cannot but advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Weitzman: Would it be possible to insert some provision in the directions

given to the immigration officers that, unless they are given instructions to the contrary, reasons in writing ought to be given to the immigrant?

The Attorney-General: I do not think I can go so far as to say that. If we gave reasons in writing in some cases and not in others it might point to the reason in the other case. But I will consult my right hon. Friend to see whether some guidance can b:: given to immigration officers to give reasons orally wherever possible. I know that that is not likely to satisfy all hon. Members opposite. But I think that it goes some way to meet the, hon. and learned Member for Ipswich who was wrong in suggesting, or in thinking, that immigration officers would, as he said, have almost an unfettered discretion. In fact, they will be given guidance by their superior officers at the Home Office.

Miss Jennie Lee: I have listened with astonishment to the reply of the Attorney-General. Obviously, the right hon. and learned Gentleman found himself in rather a difficult situation. He had listened to arguments about the situation of someone who might be rejected because the quota had been filled. He listened to arguments about the unhappiness and worry which might be caused to someone who was given a vague answer that there might be something wrong with his health.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has listened to all kinds of arguments, and the only one he singled out was that it might be that the immigrant was suffering from some form of mental disorder. Surely, therefore, we are being asked to believe that in other circumstances an immigrant will be told the reason why he cannot enter. Anyone who is not told the reason will think that he must be suffering from some form of mental disorder. I have never heard such a flimsy excuse for rejecting a very reasonable Amendment.

Mr. S. Silverman: I should have thought that the reasons given by the Attorney-General for rejecting the Amendment added force to the argument of my hon. and learned Friend to conduct it to a Division. I can imagine nothing more mischievous or damaging than to say that a man should be told


orally the reasons for his rejection, but should not have the right to have those reasons put into writing or to have any evidence of them. A man sent back to his country after having made all arrangements might find it regarded as a reflection upon him when he arrived home that he was refused admission. It might be thought that it was for some reason involving some moral culpability or guilt.
Surely such a man is entitled to be able to produce evidence from the officer who rejected him to show that the rejection was through no fault of his own. But to tell him orally, and not enable him to prove it when he gets back home, is a monstrous argument.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I wish to support what has been said by the Attorney-General. There are additional points which I should like to make, and the first is that there is such a diversity of reasons for which this administrative decision is taken.
There may be policy reasons for refusal or personal reasons. Personal reasons might be in relation to the character of the individual or the medical standard of the individual. There might be security reasons or, on grounds of policy, reasons entirely having regard to the numbers concerned. They may even relate to the age of the person, admitting those who are students and not those who are older. There is a diversity of reasons, and it seems unsatisfactory that they should be given in writing. It would impose an undue burden on the immigration officer for there might be a mixture of a number of these reasons given at one and the same time. That might lead administratively to the officer giving a compendious reason which would not be what those putting this Amendment forward would want.
I think it better to give an oral reason. I entirely dissent from the view of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that any question of a moral stigma will attach to a person not achieving entry to this country. I think there is a clear line of demarcation between the question of entry on a purely administrative matter and the conduct of Ministers responsible to Parliament.

There is a distinction between that and what I might call the matters upon which evidence was given in great detail before the Oliver Franks Committee and then adopted. The Franks Committee never suggested that there should be any change in the ordinary position regarding aliens.
It is true that this is a new Bill, but we have little doubt that had it been before that Committee it would have included this within the ambit of its considerations. If this were included and reasons were given there would surely be great pressure for the same to be carried into the Aliens Orders. I think it would be very unsatisfactory in Aliens Orders. I do not think that every time someone is refused at the port of entry for policy or other reasons the matter should end in a debate in this Chamber. For all these reasons, I support the Government in this matter.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I intervene only because of the observations just made by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr Rees-Davies) and the reference to the Franks Committee. To the best of my recollection we never considered on that Committee the position under aliens orders. I am certain that the Franks Committee would not have appreciated this argument that the person affected by these regulations and refused permission should be told orally the reasons and the immigration officer should not be prepared to commit those reasons to writing.
It seems utterly ridiculous if it is envisaged that the immigration officer should give the reasons orally but not be required to give those reasons equally in writing, if it were only to avoid any possible confusion between the potential immigrant and the immigration officer as to what had precisely transpired between them. I could understand an argument in support of saying that in the circumstances the immigration officer should not be required to give reasons, but I would not support him. I could understand that argument from an administrative point of view, but I do not support it.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I do not think the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan


(Mr. Bowen) was present when the point was dealt with by the Attorney-General.

Mr. Bowen: Yes, I was.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I should therefore correct him. There is no requirement to give oral reasons or to state anything. No doubt in circumstances where a dispute might arise no such reason would be given, but if reasons are given purely informally that is quite different from their being given legal sanction.

Mr. Bowen: The hon. Member is quite incorrect. I was present and heard what the Attorney-General said. The Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong. He said that it was envisaged that, in general, reasons would be given orally. If that were the general practice, I fail to understand what conceivable objection there is to those oral reasons being put in writing and supplied to the person involved.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Pavitt: It is intolerable that we have to discuss such an important question as the freedom of the individual under the shadow of the Guillotine. I shall not delay the Committee any longer. The whole weight of the State and the law is to be put on a poor little immigrant. One of the things on which the Commonwealth has prided itself is the fact that we have been able to preserve the rights of the little man against the huge State. This is one of the things which will cease to be true, unless the Amendment is accepted. Unless we in the House of Commons are able to show that justice is done, and able to show it to the indvidual concerned, I cannot see how we can sustain our high standards in this respect.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 170, Noes 228.

Division No. 87.]
AYES
[10.16 p.m.


Alnsley, William
Calpern, Sir Myer
MacColl, James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
McInnes, James


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ginsburg, David
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Awbery, Stan
Gourlay, Harry
Mackie, John (Enfield. East)


Baird, John
Grey, Charles
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Manuel, A. C.


Beaney, Alan
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Mapp, Charles


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mason, Roy


Benson, Sir George
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mendelson, J. J.


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Millan, Bruce


Biyton, William
Hannan, William
Milne, Edward


Boardman, H.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mitchison, G. R.


Bowden, Rt. Hn, H. W.(Leics. S.W.)
Hayman, F. H.
Morris, John


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Healey, Denis
Neal, Harold


Bowles, Frank
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Oram, A. E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oswald, Thomas


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hilton, A. V.
Owen, Will


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Holman, Percy
Padley, W. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Holt, Arthur
Parker, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence


Callaghan, James
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Peart, Frederick


Chapman, Donald
Hoy, James H.
Pentland, Norman


Cliffe, Michael
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prentice, R. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cronin, John
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hunter, A. E.
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Randall, Harry


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rankin, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Redhead, E. C.


Deer, George
Jeger, George
Rhodes, H.


Delargy, Hugh
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Diamond, John
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Dodds, Norman
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, William


Donnelly, Desmond
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Edelman, Maurice
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kenyan, Clifford
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, Arthur


Evans, Albert
Lawson, George
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Fitch, Alan
Ledger, Ron
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fletcher, Eric
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Lewis, Anthur (West Ham, N.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Forman, J. C
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Loughlin, Charles
Steele, Thomas


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)




Stone house, John
Wade, Donald
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Stones, William
Wainwright, Edwin
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Warbey, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Symonds, J. B.
Watkins, Tudor
Winter bottom, R E.


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Weitzman, David
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Woof, Robert


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Whitlock, William
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Wilkins, W. A.



Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Willey, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Timmons, John
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Mr Sydney Irving and Mr. Short.


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gammans, Lady
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Aitken, W. T.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Mills, Stratton


Arbuthnot, John
Gibson-Watt, David
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Gilmour, Sir John
Morgan, William


Atkins, Humphrey
Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, John


Barlow, Sir John
Gower, Raymond
Nabarro, Gerald


Barter, John
Grant, Rt Hon. William
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Bell, Ronald
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Green, Alan
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Berkeley, Humphry
Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bishop, F. P.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Partridge, E.


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Bossom, Clive
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Peel, John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Peyton, John


Brewis, John
Hastings, Stephen
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Brooman-White, R.
Hay, John
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pitman, Sir James


Bryan, Paul
Hendry, Forbes
Pitt, Miss Edith


Buck, Antony
Hiley, Joseph
Pott, Percivall


Bullard, Denys
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Hocking, Philip N.
Pym, Francis


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hollingworth, John
Rawlinson, Peter


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hopkins, Alan
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cary, Sir Robert
Hornby, R. P.
Rees, Hugh


Channon, H. P. C.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Rees-Davies, w. R.


Chataway, Christopher
Hughes Hallett, vice-Admiral John
Renton, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridsdale, Julian


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Cleaver, Leonard
James, David
Roots, William


Cole, Norman
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Russell, Ronald


Collard, Richard
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooke, Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Seymour, Leslie


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Sharples, Richard


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Shaw, M.


Corfield, F. V.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Shepherd, William


Costain, A. P.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Skeet, T. H. H


Coulson, Michael
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Kitson, Timothy
Smithers, Peter


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Leather, E. H. C
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Critchley, Julian
Leavey, J. A.
Spearmon, Sir Alexander


Crowder, F. P.
Leburn, Gilmour
Speir, Rupert


Curran, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Currie, G. B. H.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lilley, F. J. P.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Dance, Jameg
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Stodart, J. A.


d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Deedes, W. F.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Storey, Sir Samuel


de Ferranti, Basil
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfleld)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Longboottom, Charles
Talbot, John E.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Loveys, Walter H.
Tapsell, Peter


Doughty, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Drayson, G. B.
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Duncan, Sir James
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Temple, John M.


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Maddan, Martin
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Farr, John
Maginnis, John E.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
Manningham-Buller. Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Turner, Colin


Forrest, George
Marten, Neil
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Vane, W. M, F.


Freeth, Denzil
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John







Vickers, Miss Joan
Wall, Patrick
Woodhouse, C. M.


Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene
Woodnutt, Mark


Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)
Webster, David
Worsley, Marcus


Walder, David
Wells, John (Maidstone)



Walker, Peter
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Wise, A. R.
Mr. Whitelaw and 




Mr. Michael Hamilton.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 17, line 12, at the end to insert:
Provided that the costs of complying with any directions under this sub-paragraph shall be defrayed by the Secretary of State.
We now find ourselves in this position. There are five minutes to go before the Guillotine falls. The Government have already accepted four Opposition Amendments to this ill-conceived, ill-digested Schedule to this ill-considered Bill. There are several other Amendments which would be discussed if time permitted and which, no doubt, would be accepted by the Government in order to improve their Bill. But there is only time to discuss this one Amendment.
This Amendment is designed to qualify the position with regard to the cost of sending back to his own country the immigrant who arrives here and who is refused admission by the immigration officer. Consider, for example, the case of the Chinese laundryman from Hong Kong cited by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) who has spent his savings coming here and who is found upon medical examination to have tuberculosis.
Or what about the person who—and according to the Attorney-General there will be several of them—is sent back and refused admission by the immigration officer, not through any personal idiosyncrasy or ineligibility of his own, but because the quota has been exhausted? In such cases who will pay the cost of sending him back? The Amendment suggests that it should be paid by the Secretary of State. There is a similar provision in a later part of the Schedule and I hope, in fairness, that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Renton: I am glad that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has drawn attention to the fact that at a late stage in our proceedings—on this the last day of the Committee stage—the Opposition have put down

Amendments which, at last, we have been able to accept. Their efforts on the earlier parts of the Bill were not so successful.

The reason why we make the shipping or aircraft company take people back who are refused admission is that without a financial sanction of this kind there would be nothing to stop them from bringing here immigrants who had neither vouchers nor entry certificates or valid reasons for coming. The carrying companies understand this position perfectly well, even if the Opposition do not.

Without labouring the point, I am afraid that this is a proviso which we could not accept. There was one later Amendment which we were prepared to accept and perhaps we shall be able to deal with that on another occasion.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman explain how what he has said applies to the immigrant who has a perfectly good reason for coming here and who is refused admission through no fault of his own but because the quota is exhausted?

Mr. Renton: If the quota had been exhausted a person would not get a voucher. But if a person has obtained a voucher then he is to be admitted by the immigration officer, subject only to questions of health and criminal record which can quite well be found out before he considers journeying to this country.

Amendment negatived.

It being half-past Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to bring the Proceedings in Committee to a conclusion.

Question put, That this Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 224, Noes 167.

Division No. 88.]
AYES
10.30 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Ashton, Sir Hubert
Barter, John


Aitken, W. T.
Atkins, Humphrey
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)


Arbuthnot, John
Barlow, Sir John
Berkeley, Humphry




Biffen, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pitman, Sir James


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Pitt, Miss Edith


Bossom, Clive
Hay, John
Pott, Percivall


Bourne-Arton, A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J,
Hendry, Forbes
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hiley, Joseph
Pym, Francis


Brewis, John
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brooman-White, R.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Rawlinson, Peter


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hocking, Philip N.
Redmayne, Rt, Hon. Martin


Bryan, Paul
Holland, Philip
Rees, Hugh


Buck, Antony
Hollingworth, John
Rees-Davies, W, R.


Bullard, Denys
Hopkins, Alan
Renton, David


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hornby, R. P.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Ridsdale, Julian


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roots, William


Channon, H. P. G.
Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, Ronald


Chichester-Clark, R.
James, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Seymour, Leslie


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Sharples, Richard


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shaw, M.


Cleaver, Leonard
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Shepherd, William


Cole, Norman
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Collard, Richard
Joseph, Sir Keith
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cooke, Robert
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Smithere, Peter


Cooper, A. E.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kitson, Timothy
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Corfield, F. V.
Leather, E. H. C.
Speir, Rupert


Costain, A. P.
Leavey, J. A.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Coulson, Michael
Leburn, Gilmour
Stevens, Geoffrey


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Craddock, Sir Berestord
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stodart, J. A.


Critchley, Julian
Lilley, F. J. P.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Crowder, F. P.
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Storey, Sir Samuel


Curran, Charles
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Currie, G. B. H.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Talbot, John E.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Tapsell, Peter


Dance, James
Longbottom, Charles
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry
Loveys, Walter H.
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, moss Side)


Deedes, W. F.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


de Ferranti, Basll
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Temple, John M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McLaren, Martin
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Doughty, Charles
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Drayson, G. B.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Duncan, Sir James
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maginnis, John E.
Turner, Colin


Errington, Sir Eric
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vane, W. M. F.


Farr, John
Marten, Nell
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Forrest, George
Mawby, Ray
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Freeth, Denzil
Mills, Stratton
Walder, David


Gammans, Lady
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walker, Peter


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Morgan, William
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Gibson-Watt, David
Morrison, John
Wall, Patrick


Gilmour, Sir John
Nabarro, Gerald
Ward, Dame Irene


Goodhew, Victor
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Webster, David


Gower, Raymond
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Whitelaw, William


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Green, Alan
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wise, A. R.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Gurden, Harold
Partridge, E.
Woodnutt, Mark


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Worsley, Marcus


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Peel, John



Hams, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Peyton, John
Mr. Finlay and


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Mr. Gordon Campbell.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blyton, William
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Boardman, H.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Awbery, Stan
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)
Callaghan, James


Baird, John
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Bowles, Frank
Chapman, Donald


Beaney, Alan
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Cliffe, Michael


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Benson, Sir George
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cronin, John







Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jeger, George
Ross, William


Deer, George
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Rt, Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Diamond, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Dodds, Norman
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Donnelly, Desmond
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Edelman, Maurice
Kenyon, Clifford
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Ledger, Ron
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Albert
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Steele, Thomas


Fitch, Alan
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fletcher, Eric
Loughlin, Charles
Stonehouse, John


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stones, William


Forman, J. C.
MacColl, James
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McInnes, James
Symonds, J. B.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Ginsburg, David
Manuel, A. C.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Gourlay, Harry
Mapp, Charles
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Grey, Charles
Mason, Roy
Timmons, John


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mendelson, J. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Millan, Bruce
Wade, Donald


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Milne, Edward
Wainwright, Edwin


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, William


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Morris, John
Watkins, Tudor


Hannan, William
Neal, Harold
Weitzman, David


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hayman, F, H.
Oram, A. E.
Whitlock, William


Healey, Denis
Oswald, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rly Regis)
Owen, Will
Willey, Frederick


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Padley, W. E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hill, O. (Midlothian)
Parker, John
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Hilton, A. V.
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Holman, Percy
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Holt, Arthur
Peart, Frederick
Wilson, Rt. Hon, Harold (Huyton)


Houghton, Douglas
Pentland, Norman
Winterbottom, R. E.


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Prentice, R. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Woof, Robert


Hoy, James H.
Probert, Arthur
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Proctor, W. T.



Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.
Mr. Sydney Irving and Mr. Short.


Hunter, A. E.
Rhodes, H.

Second and Third Schedules agreed to.

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, pursuant to Order. [25th January.]

Bill reported, with Amendments: as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Reports from the Committee of Supply of 29th January and 12th February exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr Iain Macleod.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [29th January]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62

CLASS V

VOTE 5. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, ENGLAND AND WALES

Resolution reported,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,546,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1962, for the provision of national health services for England and Wales and other services connected therewith, including payments to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, medical services for pensioners, &amp;c., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements including certain grants in aid, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, &amp;c., necessary for the services, and certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

VOTE 10. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, SCOTLAND

Resolution reported,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,122,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for the provision of national health services for Scotland and other services connected therewith, including medical services for pensioners, &amp;c., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September 1939, certain training arrangements, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores. &amp;c., necessary for the services, certain expenses in connection with civil defence, and sundry other services.

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [12th February]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62

Resolution reported,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £78,162,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz.:


CIVIL ESTIMATES, SPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1961–62



£


Class VIII, Vote 2 (Agricultural and Food Grants and Subsidies)
65,209,000


Class VIII, Vote 11 (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland)
12,953,500


Total
£ 78,162,500

Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [12th February]

Resolution reported,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st March, 1962, the sum of £96,830,500 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir E. Boyle.

CONSOLIDATED FUND

Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

SCOTLAND (WELFARE FOODS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

10.45 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I consider myself lucky to have secured the Adjournment debate, and I wish to take this opportunity to spotlight the serious decrease in the consumption of welfare foods since the prices for them were increased after 1st January, 1961. The price for codliver oil is now 1s. a bottle. Previously it was free. Vitamins A and D tablets which are now 6d. were previously free. Orange juice is now 1s. 6d. a bottle and previously was 5d.
From a Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 31st January regarding the decrease in the consumption of orange juice and cod-liver oil in the County of Ayr, I discovered that over a 12-week period before and after the price increase the decrease in consumption was 78·2 per cent. for orange juice and 70·9 per cent. for cod-liver oil. That is a very substantial decrease. The medical officer of health gave a report to the Ayr County Council showing that the average weekly decrease since the price increases was 80 per cent. for orange juice and 84 per cent. for cod-liver oil. The county council has protested to the Secretary of State—the Joint Under-Secretary will have a letter—and to the five Members of Parliament who represent Ayrshire constituencies. It has also asked the County Councils Association to take up the matter with the Secretary of State.
I received the following letter from the county council along with other relevant data:

WELFARE FOODS

Dear Mr. Manuel,
I enclose a copy of a letter which the County Council have sent to the Secretary of State protesting at the effect of the new prices of welfare foods have had on the uptake of the foods in the County Council's area, as illustrated by the figures contained in the letter. The County Council have also agreed to refer this matter to the Association of County Councils in Scotland asking that the Association take the matter up with the Secretary of State.

We have clear proof that the county council is concerned. From the

Questions which have been asked by many of my hon. Friends we have proof that this decrease in consumption is not confined to Ayrshire but is apparent throughout England and Scotland. The figure in England is about 75 per cent. and in Scotland about 80 per cent.

Arising from my Question on 31st January, the Joint Under-Secretary said that he was neither worried, shocked nor ashamed about the decrease. The hon. Gentleman will not be allowed to forget those words. I hope that he has had a change of heart from that flint-like, unthinking attitude. His hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health does not take that view. In fact, she has given a pledge that these prices would be reviewed if there were an appreciable decrease. In a debate on these price increases, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said:
The hon. Lady has paid a tribute to the value of these welfare foods. She says that the Government intend that the distribution shall continue at the present level. If we are right and the Government are wrong and the take-up falls, will the Government reintroduce the free service?

The hon. Lady replied:
I do not expect to see any change. If in fact there were such a change one would certainly wish to consider it, but I shall be very surprised indeed if there is any."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 1339.]
The Government are naturally concerned about the decrease. They wanted to unhold the opinion of the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary. They have been conducting a great publicity campaign throughout the country by articles in women's journals, in the Press generally, in Ministry of Labour offices and on the B.B.C. and I.T.V. Despite the fact that that has been going on since 1st June, the decrease has continued and the downward trend is now unmistakable.

I quote from HANSARD of the debate on 19th April, 1961. With reference to the publicity the Government are trying to put over to the country, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
One other way in which we intend to press for concentration on the hard core is education to encourage mothers to take advantage of these foods. In this connection the National Health Service leaflet on maternity


care is being revised. This leaflet is sent by National Insurance offices to all expectant mothers, along with milk tokens It is also available in maternity and child welfare clinics. It is available to general practitioners and to hospitals in their maternity and children's departments. The revised leaflet will not be sent out until June, but early next month a special one-page leaflet on the changes and the values of the food and on the National Assistance Board arrangements will be issued with the existing leaflet and widely distributed to those people who already have the present leaflet. We propose also to enlist the aid of the women's journals and the Press, the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. Our public relations division will give information on the changes and on the supplies available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1961 Vol. 638, c. 1338.]
All that is going on. Every publicity media they could gather to their aid has been asked to propagate the value of these foods, yet still we have this very steep decrease in consumption. I quote from an editorial on this matter which appeared in the Guardian on 27th December, 1961. It said:
The Minister of Health in one of his Parliamentary replies on this issue"—
That is the welfare foods—
said there were many ways in which the nutrition of the population could be watched. No doubt, but almost all improvements and deteriorations in public health are the result of barely perceptible changes taking place over a long period and a miscalculation on the scale of Miss Pitt's does not inspire confidence in the Government's sensitivity to these changes and its willingness to act upon them. At least the £1·5 million a year saved by the abolition of the welfare food subsidies should enable the Ministry to concentrate research and assistance on those families whose children are known to be poorly nourished.
This is all to save £1·5 million. Having made the cut, the Government are trying to recover the position. In view of the ministerial promise when the question of these foods was debated, that if in the unlikely event of a falling off in demand the matter would be reconsidered, can we now have a promise from the Government Front Bench that the promise will be honoured? This matter of the health of our children and of nursing mothers is of far too great moment—it includes handicapped children—to brook any delay in waiting until the facts are clearly demonstrated by illness and disease occurring in these sections of the population.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: This is indeed a strange and regrettable contrast. Yesterday we discussed the effect

of subsidies amounting to £344 million. Tonight we are considering the consequences of the withdrawal of a subsidy of just over £1 million. Yesterday a supporter of what was being done by the Government, claiming the importance of agriculture, said that it amounted to one penny per meal for every member of the population. If that is true, what we are considering is the effect of a saving of one three hundred and forty-fourth part of a penny per meal.
It is incontrovertible that there has been a fall in the uptake of these foods since 1st June last when the Government started to make this saving. From 23,000 bottles of orange juice in the twelve weeks from 4th July, 1960, it has fallen in Ayrshire—I take these facts from figures supplied by the Government—to just over 5,000 in the twelve weeks from 4th September, 1961. The take-up of cod liver oil has fallen from nearly 4,000 bottles to just over 1,000 bottles for the same period.
The fall is not controvertible. The value of the foods and the service being given are equally incontrovertible. In many cases it cannot be replaced. What we are discussing tonight—cod liver oil, orange juice, and vitamin tablets—are irreplaceable for expectant and nursing mothers, babies under 2 and children under school age, and handicapped children.
The Ministry issued a leaflet containing the heading,
Why you should buy vitamin supplements",
which states that orange juice, which is concentrated vitamin C, cannot be obtained in any other way. It has a very high content of vitamin C.
A bottle contains about as much vitamin C as seven average oranges and costs much less…orange drinks at present sold in the shops contain little vitamin C and are therefore not an adequate substitute.
This is the point. It is said that people can get this from oranges, green vegetables and potatoes, but can children under 2 have a diet like that? This is the proper way to give this vital vitamin to babies. If it is not being taken up, the babies are suffering. This is the point the Government must face.
Vitamins A and D, which are concentrated in cod liver oil, help the growth of the child and its resistance to diseases


of the ear, throat and chest. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire is right. In the face of these facts, it is incredible that the Under-Secretary should say:
I am neither worried, shocked nor ashamed…"[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 1080.]

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): Read on.

Mr. Ross: I intend to read on. I do not think that this is hard or cruel. I think it is utterly silly. It is a tragedy that we should have in the Scottish Office Ministers who are prepared to make such statements. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was no evidence that health was affected. Of course there is no evidence that the health is affected, but when will this tell on the children—not tomorrow, not next year. It will tell in their eventual inabilty to resist disease. Is it worth doing this in order to save £1½ million?
I sincerely hope that the Under-Secretary will redeem himself tonight, and will ensure that immediate steps are taken to provide these things free, as they were, or at a reduced rate, because—let us face it—if we are here seeing the loss of the mothers' habit of going to the clinics to take up these foods we can before long say "goodbye" to an increase in the take-up, in spite of all the advertisements. The Government did a terrible thing, there was no justification for it, and I think that their meanness will be paid for very dearly in the future health of our people in Scotland.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I ask the Minister to take a different view from that which he expressed the other day at Question Time. As one who represents him in the House, and as a citizen of Ayrshire, I ask him to think of the effects of this particularly mean little act of economy on the people amongst whom he lives. It has been said that he will reply that there are not likely to be any ill-effects. How does he know? Can he brush aside the opinion of the medical officer of health of Ayrshire and the opinion of the health committee there? I served for many years on the health committee of the Ayrshire County Council, and I

know that its members take their duties very seriously. They are concerned, as is the hon. Gentleman, and as the Government are concerned, to curtail any unnecessary public expenditure, but they believe that this is a necessary public expenditure and wish the Minister to change his view of it.
This is something which bears very heavily on the people with the lowest incomes. A very large number of people in our villages have very low incomes indeed. At the same time, they are having to pay extra rent, and the housewives have to work on a very low margin. The medical officer of health and the health committee of the Ayrshire County Council would not have taken the trouble to have urged hon. Members representing Ayrshire divisions to raise this subject had they not first given it very serious consideration, and had they not believed that to do so was in the interests of the people they represent. I urge the Minister to give a more sympathetic reply this evening than the one he gave at Question Time the other day.

11.4 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): When the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) raised this matter at Question Time almost a fortnight ago we had some rather heated exchanges. That was, perhaps, inevitable, because the subject of these welfare food vitamin supplements is one about which there is a lot of feeling. I hope, however, to be able to show tonight that that feeling is misplaced and comes from what is perhaps a misunderstanding of what the Government are trying to do. For that reason, I welcome the debate, and I hope that in clearing up various misunderstandings it may serve a useful purpose, not only in this House but in the country.
To get the matter into proper perspective it is necessary to go back some way and to consider when this scheme for the provision of orange juice, cod-liver oil and vitamin A and D tablets began, and why it was introduced. As the House probably knows, the scheme was started early in the war when there was rationing and a shortage of foods containing these vitamins. The object of the scheme was to protect the health


of expectant mothers, nursing mothers and young children by making available in concentrated form the vitamins which they needed and were otherwise difficult to obtain.
One interesting feature about the scheme which may have been forgotten by hon. Gentlemen opposite is that it was not at that time free. A bottle of orange juice cost 5d. while a bottle of cod-liver oil cost 10d.—much dearer in real terms than the present prices; packets of vitamins A and D, which cost 10d. each, were much dearer in real terms than the present price of 6d. a packet. So until July, 1946—when the party opposite made cod-liver oil and vitamin tablets available free of charge—we had in operation an orange juice, cod-liver oil and vitamins scheme at costs not out of line, taking into account the fall in the value of money, with those that obtain today. In view of all that has been said about costs this is an important point to remember.
I turn now—because this is a point on which there is considerable misunderstanding—to the health aspect and the contribution which welfare vitamin supplements have made to nutrition. The interesting thing is that the consumption of these supplements in peacetime has always been about one-third of the entitlement. That is to say, two-thirds have not been taken up. This is true even of the immediate post-war years when supplies of other sources of vitamins were much scarcer than they are today. What happened since then is that other sources of vitamins gradually became more plentiful, families became better off and the consumption of welfare foods fell even below the normal low level. In Scotland, in the last six months of 1960, the take-up of orange juice was just over 29 per cent., of vitamins A and D about 19 per cent. and of cod-liver oil about 9 per cent. The figures for Ayrshire—with which all the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have been concerned—show that in the same period a somewhat similar trend to that of the rest of Scotland prevailed there. About 30 per cent. took their orange juice, 18 per cent. took vitamins A and D and 10 per cent. took their cod-liver oil.
It may be argued that although only a minority took these welfare foods, the

food was going to those who needed it the most.

Mr. Manuel: That is the point.

Mr. Galbraith: But hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to appreciate that surveys which have been carried out show that the consumption of welfare foods was the lowest among the social classes four and five. They are the very people who, it might be thought, would need these welfare foods the most. Yet they were, in fact, taking them the least. These facts show plainly that the beneficiaries have not had to rely on welfare foods alone as their source of vitamins. A great many people, particularly among those who are worst off, have relied instead on natural foods and, perhaps, also on the various proprietary preparations that are available in the shops and sometimes at clinics.
Throughout the period 1950–1960, when only about one-third of the welfare food vitamins available were being taken up—and when the poorer classes were taking up even less than this—what was happening to the health of the mothers and young children? This is the crucial aspect of this question, because the actual consumption does not really matter. What matters is the health of those for whom the vitamins are being made available. I am glad to be able to say that the story of health is very good indeed. In Scotland, the infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births, which was only 38·6 in 1950 had dropped to 26·4 in 1960. The maternal mortality rate per 10,000 births fell from 10 to 3 in the same period. Meanwhile scurvy and rickets had become very rare diseases.

Mr. Manuel: That has been the trend all over Europe.

Mr. Galbraith: Nevertheless, this is an encouraging picture. The point which I want to stress is that this improvement has been achieved despite the small up-take of these welfare foods.
Reference has been made to the remarks of my hon. Friend. The best answer I can give is to refer the House to what the Minister of Health said when he was asked about the same point. He then said that the problem was one of individual and particular families and that it did not require a


general subsidy. That is the view of the Government, and it has been borne out by our experience.
The House will be aware that the Cohen Committee was concerned with the supply of welfare vitamin supplement for those people who had an inadequate diet. Let us consider how far our new scheme meets this requirement. The basic plank of the scheme is that those worst off—that is, those at or about the National Assistance level—will continue to get free of charge what they need. Up to date there have been some encouraging results. From mid-June to mid-September, 1961, free issues of orange juice were over 38,000, compared with a figure of less than 7,000 for the same period in 1960. This is not due to the fact that more people were receiving National Assistance; in fact, it is the other way round. There are fewer people on National Assistance now than there were in the period immediately preceding the change in prices. The reasons for the increase in up-take seem to be partly the simplified procedure and partly the good publicity given about the availability of these foods for those living at or about the National Assistance level.
For those above it, vitamin foods are available more cheaply than they are available elsewhere. To take an extreme example, the case of an expectant mother with three children under five years, it will cost only about 2s. 6d. a week for her to buy all the vitamin supplement to which she is entitled; which is less than 2s. more than she would have had to pay before. But it is, of course, up to the mother to decide whether she will buy our welfare foods or the proprietary pro

ducts; or she can have the natural sources of vitamin which are now in abundant supply.
The important thing is to notice that while the total up-take of these foods has declined it never was more than about one-third. One of the beneficial results of the changes made last year is the increase in the up-take by the poorer people.
To sum up, welfare foods originally supplied at cost in wartime, have not in peace time been a main source of vitamin. In the 1950s beneficiaries used less than one-third of the quantity to which they were entitled and yet health and nutrition improved. Consequently, the fall in up-take since June is not in itself a reason for any alarm.
The group whom it is important to provide with welfare foods is that which may be in danger of not getting enough vitamins because they cannot afford to buy enough of the proprietary preparations. This group is protected under the new scheme and is taking up more welfare foods than before. For the rest, welfare foods are available as part of the local health authority services for mothers and young children at prices which are cheap and are good value for money. As I stated at Question Time a fortnight ago, the Government will continue to keep a watch on the—

The Question having been proposed after half-past Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.